Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Defence Manpower

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Defence what percentage of the total working population is at present engaged on defence work.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): 4·6, Sir.

Mr. Digby: Does this rather modest figure not show that our demands on manpower since the end of conscription have not been considerable in this country, and are they not a factor which should influence us before we seek the help of our allies with regard to forces?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that this is a proper contribution to make to the defence of the country but not an excessive one.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Defence what percentage of the gross national product is now being spent on defence.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Seven.

Mr. Digby: As this figure is not a very high one compared with what we were spending in 1952, does it not put in proper proportion the total amount of defence expenditure for the coming year, which shows an increase?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It compares with a figure of 9·8 per cent. in 1952–53 and shows quite a reduction.

Mr. Reynolds: Does the 7 per cent. expenditure include next year or only the

current year, as asked? If not, what will the figure be next year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This is what is being spent on this year at the present time, and it looks like staying around 7 per cent., though there may be one point either way. The figure, of course, depends on the growth of the national product.

Transport Command (Aircraft)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Defence if, in accordance with his intention to see that Transport Command will continue to have adequate means to carry out its rôle, he intends the strategic freighters already on order to meet all future needs and whether he will alter his order for Belfast aircraft to include provision for a higher ceiling to that of the 10 at present on order.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Strategic freighters now on order will meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend, in addition to the present order for the ten Belfasts, think ahead and, as a matter of development, consider a new Belfast designed to meet the needs of a higher ceiling, and possibly with jet engines?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will always consider any proposal that my hon. and learned Friend puts in front of me, but, looking at our present needs and our needs for the foreseeable future, I am bound to say that it seems that we have ordered an adequate number of strategic transports.

Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government will reach a final decision on the HS.681?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I was proposing to answer a Question on that later.

Helicopters

Captain Litchfield: asked the Minister of Defence how many helicopters were in operational service in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, respectively, one year ago; how many are in service now; and how many are on order.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It would not be in accordance with normal practice for me to quote the figures which my hon. and gallant Friend asks for but I can say that the number of helicopters in each of the three Services is considerably larger than it was a year ago and is steadily increasing.

Captain Litchfield: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that instructive reply, may I ask whether he is aware that he can count on a very wide measure of support for his efforts to overcome what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) used to describe as resistances to meeting the operational requirements of the Services? Can my right hon. Friend say when these requirements for helicopters will be met?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Some hint of this support had reached me, and I would agree that helicopters today are a very important addition to the requirements of the Services, particularly in limited war. I am fully aware of that, and I think that we may have an opportunity of debating the matter in somewhat fuller detail later in the month.

Mr. Paget: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the present outstanding shortage in our equipment and that wherever one goes one is asked, "Can we have more choppers?" Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this very urgent need of the Forces will not take a back place to the idea that one must always buy British?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that it will certainly not take a back place.

Overseas Combined Headquarters

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Defence what consideration has been given to putting some British overseas combined headquarters afloat.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Member is referring to the Unified Headquarters in Aden and Singapore, I do not think that there can be any question of establishments of this size and complexity operating afloat.

Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be wise to con

sider the American development of a headquarters ship? Might that not well be used to house the operational and communications side of a joint headquarters, such as in the Middle East?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am certainly prepared to consider the matter of headquarters ships, but the headquarters at Aden and Singapore, which I am discussing here, are on a rather larger and more complex scale.

Cyprus

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what defence expenditure was incurred in Cyprus from 1952 to 1963; and what is now the strategic purpose of maintaining a base in Cyprus.

Mr. Thorneycroft: About £200 million. The strategic purpose of the base remains as described in the Statement on Defence, 1962. Cyprus remains the main base for our air strike force in support of CENTO and for certain essential parts of our world-wide network of military communications.

Mr. Hughes: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what the British taxpayer has for this enormous expenditure of £200 million? Do we not now seem to have locked up a great deal of the British Army there with no very clear strategic purpose? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a good thing if we handed the whole matter over to the United Nations?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman will study the White Paper of 1962 he will see the arguments for it set out.

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement about the recent change in the command of thy: British forces in Cyprus.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday in answer to a Question by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley).

Mr. Reynolds: Does the Minister realise that this still does not explain why an officer who, by all reports, was doing, with the men under his command, an exceptionally good job in that


theatre is suddenly relieved of his command after an implied rebuke to him from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the House? Does he accept that this is hardly the way to inspire confidence and encourage our soldiers and officers who have been doing such good work in Cyprus?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave. There is no reflection whatever on General Young. The commander of the British forces is neither General Young nor General Carver but Air-Chief Marshal Barnett, and there is fully room for two officers of general rank in Cyprus at the present time where our troops are under some pressure.

Mr. Paget: Is it not clear that an unfortunate muddle was made with this announcement? Would it not be far better to leave to the War Office announcements about Army commands and not have other Ministers stepping in to make them?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir; I do not think that any muddle was made about it. If there were any misunderstanding, I am happy to have cleared it up. I should now like to do what I am sure the whole House will approve, and that is to pay a tribute to the work which General Young has done.

Sea Vixen and Hunter Aircraft

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Defence what decision has been reached about the replacement of Sea Vixen aircraft for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Healey: asked the Minister of Defence when he will make a statement regarding aircraft to replace the Hunter and Sea Vixen.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have nothing at present to add to previous statements but propose to announce future plans in the defence debate next week.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of providing for the Royal Navy aircraft which are not hybrids and the equal importance of redeveloping the P.1154 as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear those considerations in mind.

Mr. Healey: To ensure that Her Majesty's Government cannot be accused of deceiving the House by publishing Defence Estimates which do not take into account the new projects, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when he announces his decision about these matters he will also state the cost falling on Her Majesty's Government in these respects during the coming financial year and the estimated cost over the next five years? As the right hon. Gentleman thought that I had tabled a Question about the Hawker Siddeley 681, would he answer my previous query about that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: What I have been proposing to do—I think it would be for the convenience of the House—is to make a comprehensive statement about these aircraft in the debate. I will include the Estimates point at the same time, but the Estimates are accurate for the forecast.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will make every effort to ensure that the requirements of the Navy in this respect are met from British home production and that the order does not go abroad even if it means some delay?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will give full consideration to that. I do not want to prejudge the statement which I shall be making in some detail on a fairly wide front later.

Mr. Healey: Might I press the right hon. Gentleman on what he has just said—that the estimates are accurate for the forecast? Did he mean to imply that the Estimates already presented to the House include provision for these aircraft? If so, why on earth did he not announce his decision, since he has already taken it, in the Defence White Paper, instead of springing it on the House as a surprise in the defence debate and trying to distract attention from the obvious weaknesses of the White Paper as a whole?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps we can go into that in the debate.

Arms Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give details of the proposed increase in arms expenditure of £265 million a year by 1967–68.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir, but the figure takes account of rising living standards for the Service man as well as the growing cost and complexity of equipment.

Mr. Allaun: Surely that is not right? There is an increase of only £30 million a year for soldiers' pay. Since the Government have decided to increase the arms burden by £160 million a year, plus millions of pounds of hidden expenditure in a single year, is it not a fact that the £265 million estimate is a serious understatement of the Government's arms expenditure?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Mayhew: Does this figure make provision to replace the military aid so misguidedly cut off by the Americans?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a rather minimal aspect of these matters.

Mr. Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman replied to me "No, Sir". But how can he agree to £265 million being a reasonable estimate for three years—it is a fantastic figure in the opinion of many people—when he will spend nearly that in the first year alone?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think we could debate the cost of defence when we come to the debate. That will be better than starting a wide-ranging discussion at Question Time.

United Nations (Military Forces)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Defence if he will introduce legislation to place a contingent of British military forces at the disposal of the United Nations, under conditions similar to those contained in proposals submitted to the United Nations by the Norwegian Government.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Legislation would not be necessary.

Mr. Warbey: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to assign a contingent of British

forces to the command of the United Nations and available at call, as is now being done by Norway and a number of other countries? If the British Government were to take this step, which would be setting a very good example, would it not also considerably relieve the Government of some of the embarrassments that they are now suffering over Cyprus?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. Whatever else may be said about British forces or the British Government, I do not think anybody would say that we were under-contributing forces to peacekeeping throughout the world.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are spending a very large sum of money on defence in various parts of the world which we can ill afford, and that in some of these places we are not wanted at all? Would he consider the possibility of the United Nations taking over some of these responsibilities instead of this country carrying them alone?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question is concerned with whether I would legislate in order to put forces under the command of the United Nations. No legislation is required. Wider discussions on the rôle of the United Nations had, I think, better be left to a foreign affairs debate.

Mr. Warbey: Has not the right hon. Gentleman missed the whole point, that the forces which Norway and other countries are proposing to put at the disposal of the United Nations are specifically assigned contingents, allotted for that purpose, which are to be handed over to the. United Nations command when called upon by that organisation, and financed by that organisation while they are under its command? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman says can be done without legislation? If so, why does he not do it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly it could be done without legislation. While the Norwegian proposal was supported by us, I think, at the United Nations, it was not considered appropriate that permanent members of the Security Council should as a general rule make their forces permanently available upon this basis. As I have said, we really are


making very large numbers of forces available throughout the world for keeping the peace.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the most important principles of war is economy of force, and that all our experience of the United Nations seems to lead us to believe that this principle would not be maintained?

V-Bombers and Polaris Submarines

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Defence what effect the recent announcement on the lengthening of the life of the V-bomber force will have upon the Polaris programme.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of his decision to extend the life of the V-bomber force, he will bring forward the hunter-killer submarine programme.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The answer to the former is None, Sir, and to the latter is No, Sir.

Mr. Willis: Yes, but if the V-bomber force is to remain a credible deterrent up to and into the 'seventies, does this not give an opportunity to the Government to rephase the Polaris programme in a manner which would avoid some of the problems in connection with skilled manpower and equipment in the Service which at present appear to be likely to arise?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if there is a gap such as the Secretary of State for Air has indicated, he might have an opportunity of rephasing the hunter-killer programme, which would remove one of the big obstacles which the Minister mentioned previously to distributing properly and in the national interest orders for submarines throughout the various shipbuilding rivers of the country? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter more carefully so that we get, not only for defence reasons but for mercantile reasons, the advantage of building atomic-propelled submarines in the rivers of this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: While I appreciate this support and also the importance

which the hon. Gentleman attaches to bringing the V-bomber force up to date, I think our answer must be that we must try to keep all weapons systems as up-to-date and as viable as possible. But this does not justify us in scrapping the Polaris programme.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Navy ships have already been laid up through lack of skilled manpower? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the First Lord concerning the position with regard to skilled manpower in the Navy at the present time?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reliance on the V-bombers, but the hon. Member should not overstress this point.

Land Forces (Commitments)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence what further measures he intends to take in order to meet British commitments by raising land forces to a higher level.

Mr. Thorneycroft: British forces are today meeting our commitments to the full.

Mr. Shinwell: Could not the right hon. Gentleman be a little less laconic? Is not he aware that the purpose of Questions is to gain information and that so far from his replies to several Questions we have gained nothing? In view of his statement, which has been repeated quite often, that our troops are stretched almost to the limit, what about the "Ever-Readies"? What are they ever ready for? Is not our scepticism at the time when the idea was initiated by the then Secretary of State for War justified?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that brevity in Answers necessarily makes them less informative.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being a little contemptuous of the House? Will he be good enough to reply to the Question I put? If our troops are being stretched to the limit, as he and others have said, what about the "Ever-Readies"? What is their


purpose? What are they ever ready for?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper, because the measures to establish the "Ever-Readies" have already been taken. The "Ever-Readies" provide a very useful reserve if we need to call upon them.

Civil Servants (Civil Employment)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence how many civil servants in all Ministries involving defence have left since 1951 to take up senior posts with companies with contractual relations with those Ministries.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Eighteen.

Mr. Allaun: Is not this an undesirable practice for both senior civil servants and Cabinet Ministers? Will the Minister consider increasing the present bar for civil servants from two years to five years before they can take a post and consider also imposing some bar upon Ministers or former Ministers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The general rules governing this are set out in the White Paper Cmd. 5517 of 1937, and the number concerned is 18. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question about amending the policy in the White Paper, perhaps he will put it on the Order Paper.

Mixed-manned Force

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Defence why he has agreed to 18 months as the period for his experiment in a mixed-manned force.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The period has been agreed by the countries considering the mixed-manned surface ship proposal as a result of military advice tendered to them.

Mr. Rankin: Could not we have acquired in three months all the knowledge we need regarding the workability of the mixed-manned force? Did the right hon. Gentleman accept 18 months without demur because that period placed this important issue beyond the ambit of an election and because the

Cabinet themselves on this issue have become a mixed-manned force in which no two speak the same language?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I did not fix the period; it was fixed by military advice to an international committee meeting to consider these matters. Whatever else I have done, I do not think that I could have cut it down from 18 months to three.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that on every occasion the advice of the military experts is always accepted without question by himself and his colleagues in the Cabinet?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This advice was not even tendered to me; it was tendered to an international committee.

Mr. Paget: Is not 18 months a convenient time to forget this bit of nonsense?

Nuclear Warfare

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the criteria on which he assesses the nuclear damage a potential aggressor would accept.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No potential aggressor would be likely to regard any major nuclear exchange as acceptable.

Mr. Rankin: Does it occur to the right hon. Gentleman that the potential aggressor is also thinking in the same terms as he is and making the same sort of assessment? If it is true, as the Prime Minister assures us every day, that Russia is the potential aggressor, is the Minister of Defence saying that we could accept the same amount of nuclear punishment which Russia can accept, particularly in view of the fact that Russia controls her nuclear weapons and we would use them only by permission of America?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the hon. Gentleman has stumbled upon part of the truth in saying that it is this mutual and provident fear which is the essence of a deterrent.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to match his replies, brevity in supplementary questions from some parts of the House would be greatly welcomed?

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that at any period in history man has ever feared the weapons which he used?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should have thought that all mankind today feared a nuclear explosion.

Service Departments (Transferred Staff)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence how many military and civilian staff will be transferred in the current year from the Service Departments to the Ministry of Defence under the scheme for the reorganisation of defence.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The lot, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Will this streamlining, co-ordination or effective co-operation—all terms which the right hon. Gentleman has used with reference to the scheme for the reorganisation of defence—mean that more staff will be employed at the Ministry of Defence and in the three Service Departments or that fewer will be employed?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The difference is about 70 between 1st April, 1964, and 1st April, 1963.

Mr. Shinwell: More or less?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Seventy more.

U.S.S.R. (Anti-Aircraft Defences)

Mr. Healey: asked the Minister of Defence what revision has been made of the information in the possession of his Department regarding the anti-aircraft defences of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, following that published by his predecessor in 1960.

Mr. Thorneycroft: My predecessor, on the occasion which the hon. Member appears to have in mind, was speaking of defences against high-level attack with Blue Steel. I have no reason to amend what he said on this subject four years ago. The capabilities of enemy defences against both high-level and low-level attack are, of course, kept continuously under review.

Mr. Healey: Are we to understand that it is not now considered feasible

to use Blue Steel or the V-bombers in any high-level attack in Soviet territory? Secondly, is it not a fact that, since the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor made his statement in 1960, the Soviets have got in service a fighter aircraft capable of flying at nearly twice the speed of Blue Steel?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir; the answer simply means that it was a very prudent investment to ensure that they are capable of attacking at both high and low level.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Installations

Miss Quennell: asked the Postmaster-General what formula or calculation his Department employs to anticipate demands for the installation of telephones.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): Separate forecasts of the likely demand for telephones are made for each exchange area, and it is on the basis of these forecasts that the provision of plant is planned. The forecasts take account of past trends and future prospects, including probable business and housing developments, population changes and general expectations about economic conditions.

Miss Quennell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. However, I ask him to bear in mind that in parts of my constituency there is a delay of three years in providing a telephone. These machines are no longer luxuries but necessities. With the dispersal of business and commerce, it is urgent that some more accurate forecasting should be made and that instruments should be more expeditiously provided. Will my right hon. Friend look at his formulae again to see whether they are really reliable?

Mr. Bevins: What has been at fault in the past has not been the formula or the forecasting but the paucity of capital. This is what has held matters back. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that in her constituency half of those now waiting for telephones will have their orders met by June this year.

Banbridge (Subscriber Trunk Dialling)

Captain Orr: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects subscriber trunk dialling to begin in Banbridge, County Down.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): My right hon. Friend plans to introduce subscriber trunk dialling at 13anbridge during 1967.

Captain Orr: Why is the provision of this service so slow in Banbridge? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the head postmastership there has been recently downgraded and that it is important that the people of this community should not feel that they are being victimised?

Mr. Mawby: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no question of victimisation. As he knows, Banbridge is already an automatic exchange and the reason why this service cannot be provided earlier is that we cannot provide subscriber trunk dialling at Banbridge until additional switching equipment has been installed at the Portadown exchange. This will be completed in 1967.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that people in a number of districts do not want subscriber trunk dialling because it costs the average subscriber more to make his local calls than has been the case hitherto? The hon. Gentleman need not worry about areas which passionately desire to have this service. He can give them priority and let the other people wait, because they will be glad to do so.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member is sadly misinformed if he believes that that is the general impression. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case. If people are reasonably brief in their telephone conversations, they are finding that they are saving a great deal of money in making the same number of calls under subscriber trunk dialling than under the old timed system.

Pay-on-Answer Boxes

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General whether the installation of pay-on-answer telephone boxes is being restricted until a decision is made on decimal coinage.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.

Mr. Clark: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the machines now being installed are capable of inexpensive adaptation when we have decimal coinage?

Mr. Bevins: We have ordered pay-on-answer boxes which will meet our needs until about the beginning of 1965. However, if and when decimal coinage is adopted, all these boxes will require substantial modification.

Mr. Clark: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that they are being designed so that their adaptation will not be an expensive and lengthy process?

Mr. Bevins: That is a factor which will be taken into account when new orders are placed.

Directories

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to facilitate the sale of telephone directories to the general public.

Mr. Bevins: Copies of any telephone directory can be obtained, for a small charge, on application to any telephone manager's office. I believe that this arrangement works satisfactorily, but, if my hon. Friend knows of any difficulty and will give me details, I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most members of the public find it so difficult to obtain telephone directories for other areas that they are forced to steal them from telephone boxes? Clear evidence of this is afforded by the number of telephone boxes which do not have directories in them. Would it not be very much better to advertise telephone directories for sale rather than to try to persuade the public to send more letters?

Mr. Bevins: I can only speak for people in England. I should have thought that, on the whole, we were a pretty honest bunch. I do not think that people begrudge paying 2s. for a telephone directory.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark)—and I


represent a constituency in Antrim, too—comes from searching in English telephone kiosks without being able to find a directory so that we can telephone over to Northern Ireland?

Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General what would be the cost per telephone to fit all new telephones on the subscriber trunk dialling system with a meter which will readily indicate the charge for each call as it accrues, together with the cumulative total.

Mr. Bevins: Even on the basis of universal provision, rather than, as at present, provision on request, the cost could not be substantially less than the present rental of £4 a year per telephone.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does my right lion. Friend accept that there would be no great technical difficulty in installing in a telephone some kind of meter? While recognising the advantage of the S.T.D. scheme, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he feels that this would be of some advantage to householders in keeping check of expenditure on the telephone?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, I think it might be advantageous to householders in checking telephone expenditure, but I am bound to say that only about ¼ per cent. of people on S.T.D. have applied for the use of these meters.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Retirement Pensions (Payment Facilities)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the cost and frequent difficulty of travelling to post offices authorised to pay retirement pensions, he will provide facilities for the payment of such pensions on one day in each week at outlying, villages not having a post office.

Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend has consulted the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance about this matter. We are sorry we should not be justified in providing the additional facilities for paying pensions for which my hon. Friend asks. But, if he

has in mind any particular case of difficulty and will let us have details, we will gladly see whether there is anything we can do to help. I should mention that all post offices pay pensions.

Mr. Hall: That is a very disappointing reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that even in my constituency, which is only 13 or 14 miles from London, there are many hamlets several miles from the nearest post office at which pensions can be drawn? Is he also aware that the cost of travelling on country buses is quite high and that a large proportion of the pension is taken in travelling to a post office? Furthermore, these pensioners do not like asking other people to collect their pension on their behalf, especially if they are in receipt of National Assistance. Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again?

Mr. Mawby: I can see my hon. Friend's point, but we already provide post offices in rural areas on as generous a scale as we think we can justify. Normally, we regard two miles as a reasonable distance between post offices in these areas, but we do not keep rigidly to this. If we made this special arrangement, it would have to be by agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for whom we act only as agents in this matter.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of a return fare on a country bus to travel two miles to a post office can be 3s. or more?

Stamp Machines

Commander Kerans: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to ensure that General Post Office stamp machines are maintained in working order at all times.

Mr. Mawby: Standing instructions provide that these machines should be tested daily and cleared and refilled as often as necessary. Faults are dealt with as soon as possible. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular difficulty in mind we will gladly look into it.

Commander Kerans: I am grateful for that reply, but it is a fact that in a vast number of areas half these machines


are empty and that the coins in other machines vary from halfpennies and pennies to threepenny bits. One never knows what one may expect to find in them.

Mr. Mawby: The normal stamp machine should be looked at once a day and refilled if necessary. In addition to the daily test, all stamp machines are inspected and cleaned every month and overhauled every three months. If they are used to a large extent they are inspected more than once a day. The fact that people use bent coins, foreign coins, and all those things which tend to jam up the works of stamp machines is a problem, but, by and large, we believe that the maintenance is as good as we can possibly provide.

Post Office Savings Bank (Transfer)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the staff of the Post Office Savings Bank will be expected to move permanently out of London when a new location for the offices has been decided.

Mr. Bevins: It is too early to give an estimate of the numbers who will volunteer to move.

Mr. Carmichael: Is the Postmaster-General aware that any movement from Central London will be of great benefit to the country as a whole? I only hope that the jobs of those who move will not be taken by others coming in to fill the posts so created.

Mr. Bevins: That is very much in our minds.

Mr. Rankin: Is it the case that the decision on whether to move or not will depend solely on the number of employees prepared to move?

Mr. Bevins: No, not at all. The number of volunteers will depend partly on the popularity of the location which is chosen and partly on the timing of the building. Obviously, some staff will have to move out of London in the interests of the efficiency of the bank, and staff preferences are only one of the factors which we shall take into account.

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Postmaster-General if a decision has yet

been reached about the removal out of London of the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. Millan: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement on his proposal to move the Post Office Savings Bank administration out of London.

Mr. Bevins: A decision on the location of the Savings Bank has not yet been reached, but I hope to be able to make an announcement by the middle of next month.

Mr. Carmichael: Is the Postmaster-General aware that in the west of Scotland area established civil servants, in particular, are very anxious about vacancies to be created in the area for their children who wish to carry on in the Civil Service but, according to the results of the last April examination, to fill a vacancy in their home area their children must be 9 per cent, brighter than London children and 7 per cent. brighter than Newcastle children? Is this not a good case for considering the west of Scotland as a location for transferred offices?

Mr. Bevins: That is one of the many factors considered. We are concerned to go to the most appropriate places where we can get the best site, housing for the staffs who move, school accommodation for their children, and so forth.

Mr. Millan: On the question of staff preferences, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the staff concerned are fully informed of the facilities offered in the various alternative locations in view of the assurance given on this point by the Lord Provost of Glasgow, for example? Is the Postmaster-General aware of the information given that the further the location from London the less chance then is of staff choosing to go there? This is an important factor. Will the right hon. Gentleman make full allowance for it?

Mr. Bevins: The position is that the Post Office gave a great deal of information to sty ff associations and members of staff about the three principal possible locations. Since then representatives of the staff associations have visited those three locations to see for themselves what conditions are like.

Commander Kerans: Can my right hon. Friend give further consideration to Tees-side, where there are adequate facilities? Will he bear that in mind when he makes a decision?

Mr. Bevins: Tees-side is one of the locations.

Household Delivery Service

Mr. Barnett: asked the Postmaster-General whether, with the introduction of the Household Delivery Service, he will ensure a second daily delivery of addressed mail in rural districts.

Mr. Mawby: The Household Delivery Service will not affect the number of deliveries of addressed mail. A second delivery of this mail is already made in rural districts when it can be justified.

Mr. Barnett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in new estates in rural areas a second delivery more frequently than not is not available? In view of this and the inconvenience it causes to people living on new estates, will the Postmaster-General undertake to give a priority to the provision of the second delivery of mail in the day-time before he introduces the Household Delivery Service?

Mr. Mawby: As I said before, these particular items can be spread over five days, so obviously there is a lot of room for local postmasters to manoeuvre. We carry out the second delivery wherever it is justified. I am prepared at any time to look at any particular area brought to my notice by the hon. Member to see whether we can justify a second delivery there.

Mr. Manuel: The Assistant Postmaster-General said that a second delivery is carried out in rural areas "where it is justified." Can he tell us the principle of justification which his right hon. Friend has adopted? Is it merely numbers or importance?

Mr. Mawby: The principle is the average cost to us per letter in a particular area. This is the basis of the calculation.

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Postmaster-General what guidance he proposes to give to postmasters to meet the position where householders instruct

them not to deliver unaddressed mail to their homes.

Mr. Mawby: They have been told to explain that it is not practicable to act in accordance with such instructions.

Mr. Loughlin: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is rather an infringement of the privacy of the individual? Is he suggesting that the householder has no right to determine what shall be delivered at his home? Is it not true to say that the householder has the right at the moment to refuse to accept delivery of ordinary mail? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and try to live up to the right of the individual to determine his own particular life?

Mr. Mawby: There is no infringement of anyone's freedom. As the hon. Gentleman points out, anyone can give notice to the Post Office that he does not wish to reecive mail; he can give notice that he wishes his mail to be redelivered to another address. What the hon. Gentleman is doing in this case is asking us to maintain special records, which will show which householders have opted out, and, to deal with complications where, perhaps, there is more than one occupant, keeping records up to date to show changes of occupancy or, possibly, changes of mind, and the records would have to be checked by the postman each delivery, to make sure that these notices were not mixed up with redirection notices affecting ordinary mail. These are important points. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that all the material sent out by this service will be unwanted. In fact there are many items which we have already been asked to deliver. [An HON. MEMBER: "By Aims of Industry, for instance?"] So this service will be welcome, particularly—

Mr. Mason: How does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member asks how do I know. Let me put it this way. Let me say, then, that I think so. For instance, many of these things will be notifying matters of social consequence, such as notices about visits of mass radiography units, and so forth. Therefore, I think it is wrong to assume that these deliveries will be unwelcome.

Mr. Loughlin: rose—

Mr. Wade: If it is not practicable for householders to opt out of this scheme for unaddressed mail, what instructions will be given to postmen where a householder has placed a "No Circulars" notice on his gate or door?

Mr. Mawby: Well, of course, it is important to remember that legally all the matters which the Post Office carries are postal packets, and so obviously they are not circulars—postal packets within the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the House has had five previous opportunities to discuss this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Woodburn, next Question.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. Did not I understand you already to have called me on this Question, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is right. I think I did call him. He is entitled, therefore, in spite of the notice, to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Loughlin: Is not what the Assistant Postmaster-General has just informed the House likely, in view of the fact, as he has said, that householders have a right to refuse to accept delivery of mail, to create a great deal of disturbance in the relationship between the postmen and the householder—if the householder has to tell the postmen to take every item of this kind back?

Mr. Mawby: No. I do not think that this is going to alter the very happy relationship which has always existed. The ordinary householder, if there are ordinary householders who object so violently to this material, would not, I think, associate it with his local postman. I do not think that this will lower the good relations.

Shakespeare Commemorative Stamps

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will print more

stamps with illustrations from other plays by William Shakespeare in connection with the 400th anniversary.

Mr. Mawby: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend will, however, be issuing two Shakespeare air mail letter forms, one of which will feature further illustrations from Shakespeare's plays. Details of these designs will be published shortly.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there seems to be general approval that the Post Office has discovered William Shakespeare but that there is a certain amount of criticism of the design of the stamps? Is he not carrying his well-known prejudice against Scotland too far by boycotting or banning Macbeth? Would he consider doing justice to Scotland by bringing Macbeth into one of the new supplementary issues he proposes making?

Mr. Mawby: In fact, very high tribute has been paid to the design of the stamps by all sorts of bodies, including the Council for Industrial Design. As to the choice of subjects, I must be quite ignorant, because I did not associate not using Macbeth with being anti-Scottish. I can assure the hon. Member that was not the reason why we did not include Macbeth. We had many subjects to choose from we could choose only six; and so we did.

Mr. John Hall: Is there not a play which it night be suitable to commemorate, perhaps some time later in the year, the title of which escapes me but which has something to do with labour lost?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Children's Hour

Mr. Millan: asked the Postmaster-General, whether he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation, under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting sound programmes unsuitable for children between the hours of 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation under the terms of Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from sending out, in their sound broadcasting service between the hours of 5 and 6 p.m. on


any day except Sunday and Saturday, matter that would reasonably be thought inappropriate for children.

Mr. Bence: asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received respecting the content of radio programmes between the hours of 5 and 6 p.m.; and if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement not to broadcast adult material during this period.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting adult sound programmes on the Home Service between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

Dr. King: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting sound programmes designed for adults between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I have received representations from a number of hon. Members on this matter, and I am bringing them to the attention of the B.B.C. I do not think it would be right for me to issue a direction.

Mr. Millan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that considerable public dismay has been expressed about the B.B.C.'s decision to discontinue the broadcasting of Children's Hour? Is there not a matter of pubic interest involved, since this seems to be a question of the B.B.C. deliberately avoiding its obligation towards a genuine minority listening audience? In the circumstances, and considering the fact that some of the information put out by the B.B.C. about this decision has been tendentious in the extreme, will the Postmaster-General intervene to make representations to the B.B.C.?

Mr. Bevins: The view of the B.B.C. is that the audience for Children's Hour on sound radio has dwindled to a very small number—about 24,000, it reckons, compared with about 4½ million who watch television at the same time. What the B.B.C. has in mind to do—it has

not actually done so yet—is to devote roughly half an hour to programmes for elderly people between 5 and 6 o'clock and half an hour to programmes which appeal to both children and adults. I realise that there is a certain feeling both in the House and in the country on this matter. While it is only right that I should say that programme planning is a matter for the B.B.C., I am quite sure that the B.B.C. will heed what is being said in this House today. If the House so wishes, I am perfectly willing to discuss this with the chairman of the B.B.C.

Mr. Lawson: Would the Postmaster-General draw to the attention of the B.B.C. the fact that one of the justifications for its existence in the form of a public corporation is that it caters for minority tastes and interests? Will he draw its attention to the fact that we regard the interests and tastes of children as of great importance and wish to see them catered for in the best manner possible?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bence: When considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that in a large part of Scotland television is not recieved? There is no question of television viewing increasing and radio listening declining because many cannot get T.V. Will he bear in mind that there is this minority in Scotland and in a large part of rural Wales where the only entertainment for children is Children's Hour?

Mr. Bevins: That is one important consideration, and also the fact that in many homes there are not television sets but only sound radio sets. Of course, there is the particular difficulty of blind children.

Mr. Boyden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will lay particular emphasis on that last point, that blind children will be completely deprived of radio entertainment if this service is not maintained?

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from television programmes, children themselves have opted for the alternative sound programme "Play Time" on the Light Programme? Over 1 million children are listening to


that programme today compared with 20,000 who listen to Children's Hour. If that is why the B.B.C. is now choosing this narrow point of time for a programme for old persons, is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that many people who love the Children's Hour programme are worried that programmes of this quality should disappear, whatever happens?

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with the hon. Member.

Mrs. Emmet: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this will be a great deprivation for blind children and also sick children in hospital and that this programme has a real therapeutic value?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. I am expressing a purely personal point of view when I say that I should not have thought one can decide these matters purely on the basis of figures and numbers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, irrespective of listening and viewing figures, many parents of young children consider that the programmes put out on sound radio are superior to those on television?

Mr. Mason: Why has the Postmaster-General not more positive things to say to the House today? Is he aware that the B.B.C. made this announcement more than three weeks ago? Is he aware that there was a Motion on the Order Paper signed by 40 hon. Members and Questions were put down for him to answer a week ago? There was a deluge of letters in the Press and letters to him and to the B.B.C. which have been published. Why has he not made representations to the B.B.C. before he came to the House so that he could positively say that he was intervening on behalf of the House of Commons when there is this public concern? All minorities are being ignored, blind children and people in fringe areas which are not receiving television and those without television sets. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should have used the reserve power to intervene before today?

Mr. Bevins: The short answer is that there are sometimes more effective ways of doing things than that of using a big stick.

Independent Television (Educational Programmes)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now authorise the educational television experiment for which application has been made by the Independent Television Authority in conjunction with Ulster Television and Queen's University, Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevins: A whole range of experiments in educational television, of which this is one, have been proposed. They raise important questions of a technical, organisational and financial character and are of concern to several Departments. I am at present discussing these questions with my colleagues. Meanwhile, I am afraid the answer to my hon. Friend's Question must be "No".

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the valuable pioneer work which Ulster Television did about two years ago in this field with the University of the Air? Is he aware that the Independent Television Authority last summer authorised a considerable sum of money for this experiment which Ulster Television and Queen's University, Belfast, have carried on, and can he give some indication when a decision will be reached?

Mr. Bevins: Yes. I hope my hon. Friend win not take my reply as implying any lack of enthusiasm for educational television. We have in fact been most interested in the proposals which have been put up to us by Ulster Television and Queen's University. The reason why we have turned down this particular application is that we believe that in the first place we should settle the principle as to who should produce and transmit these programmes and who should pay for them as well.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to use the phrase "turn down" in his supplementary answer? I understood from his original reply that t was still under consideration.

Mr. Bevins: I said in my original Answer that the answer to my hon. Friend's Question must be "No".

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES (NOTICE)

Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) rose to put a point of order on a supplementary question and gave notice that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment. He did not use the usual form about not being satisfied with the nature of the reply, but said, in effect, that he was giving notice because, in his view, the matter had already been adequately considered on five previous occasions and that notice of an Adjournment debate would stop further questions today.
Is this not an abuse of procedure? What guarantee have we that the hon. Member who, in effect, stifled further questioning by giving this notice, will, in fact, give notice in the correct way in seeking an Adjournment debate and that his application will be considered by you in the ordinary way if he has good fortune in the Ballot?

Mr. Speaker: Two points are involved here. The first is that it is highly desirable that hon. Members, in giving notice, should remember to use the traditional formula and not add words to it. Almost everyone does add words, but it is an undesirable practice and I hope that we can get rid of it.
Secondly, it is for me to judge whether notice is given in abuse—that is to say, merely to stifle further questioning. When I accepted the notice given by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) I did not think that it was, in such circumstances, subject to my having made a mistake in forgetting that I had called the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). An hon. Member having given notice that he will raise the matter in that manner, I cannot go further.

Mr. Reynolds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I question you at some future date if you know by then that this notice was not given by the hon. Member for Bristol, West?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question of me he will have to do so by Private Notice, so that the Chair can consider whether or not to allow it.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised a complaint of breach of privilege founded on words used by the Minister of Aviation in his reply to the debate on Monday, words which revealed that the Public Accounts Committee was considering the matter of the Ferranti contract and that the accounting officer of the Ministry had been summoned as a witness to the Committee.
I have considered the complaint with great care in the light of the precedents and of the advice available to me. In my view, it does not, prima facie, disclose a breach of privilege of the House. The House knows that my view of the prima facie position in no way bars the House from considering the matter if it wishes to do so on an appropriate proceeding. The sole effect is that we cannot consider the matter now because I cannot give the hon. Gentleman's complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In taking your decision did you, may I ask, take account of the proceedings in the House on 13th June, 1951, when an almost precisely similar situation arose, although there were much weaker circumstances, since a missing witness was involved? The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) raised the same point as I have done. He was backed up by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and the then Father of the House, the late Lord Winterton. Your predecessor did not rule that the reference to the calling of a witness—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Chair rules that, in the view of the Chair, right or wrong, there is no prima facie case, the result is that we cannot discuss it now. There are obvious reasons for which I must decline to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to give the reasons underlying my decision on the prima facie position. The first is that we cannot discuss it now and the second is the fact that the House may wish to consider the matter in some other way and, therefore, it would be highly undesirable and might embarrass future discussion by giving now the reason for my view.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House is in some difficulty. Because the matter has been raised as a prima facie breach of privilege we are in the difficulty that many of us, I believe on both sides, would like to ask whether you could consider the Ruling that you gave the other evening on this matter. Perhaps you may be able to give us some guidance as to how this could he done.
It is my understanding, after reading some of the past cases, including the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) mentioned, that the whole House had the impression at one time that we could not discuss the transactions of a Select Committee until that Committee had reported to the House.
I understood that the argument in 1951 arose out of whether there was a transaction or not in the non-attendance of a witness before the Select Committee. Certainly, Erskine May suggested that it was a transaction. I do not ask you to answer me now, but could you give consideration to this matter with a view to giving guidance, at an appropriate time, on the exact interpretation of the question of the relationship between the House and Select Committees?
I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, in raising this matter as one of privilege, has, in a sense, narrowed the matter down so that it cannot be discussed now, but it would be helpful to know your considered view on the matter since there have been very widely different impressions about the relationship between the House and its Select Committees.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I would like to give thought to the best method. One method is to criticise me by Motion for my Ruling, but that may be rather cumbrous. Another method may be a question inviting a Ruling on the subject. I do not think that we can get back on any basis except one of criticism to my Ruling the other night. I do not give any encouragement, for I noticed that my predecessor, in 1947, said that he found it difficult to lay down any general rule. That is still certainly the case.

Sir G. Nicholson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are so good as to make an expression of opinion and give a Ruling, would it be

possible for hon. Members with views on the subject to give them to you privately so that these points could be considered?

Mr. Wigg: I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that if views are to be conveyed to you they should be conveyed also to the House. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite, judging by their voices and their murmurings, make it clear that they take a very different view of this matter from that which they took when they were trying to embarrass my right hon. Friends in 1951.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss this situation now. I should like to give thought to the best procedural method of meeting the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members as to what I think might be the best procedure.

Mr. Wigg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not prolong the discussion now. The House has other business.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you did almost invite a substantive Motion involving your own behaviour. I am happy to leave the matter in your hands now, but I must make it plain that I shall not shrink from the first alternative if I am forced to take it.

Mr. Speaker: I am merely considering possible methods by which the hon. Member can test the matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Planning Appeals (Machinery)

Mr. Lagden: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the machinery of planning appeals, and move a Resolution.

Children and Young Persons (Care)

Miss Vickers: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the need for further development of the services for the care of children and young persons, and move a Resolution.

Smoking and Health

Mr. Marsh: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 6th March, I shall call attention to the Report of the Royal College of Physicians on Smoking and Health and move a Resolution.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES

3.40 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal certain obsolete provisions of the law relating to hackney carriages in the Metropolis.
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, when a man begins his occupation as a taxi driver in the Metropolitan Police District, or the City of London, he is handed a booklet called Abstract of Laws. Similar volumes of varying thickness have been issued, pursuant to Section 8 of the London Hackney Carriage Act, 1843, for more than 120 years. Believe it or not, the driver of a cab, with all his other preoccupations, is told in this volume:
The abstract is not an exhaustive statement of the law. For this reference should be made to the text of the Statutes etc. quoted.
The list in the present Abstract refers to the Acts of 1831, 1832, 1833, 1843, 1850, 1853, 1853 (No. 2), 1867, 1869, 1896, 1907, the London Cab Order, 1934, the London Traffic (Miscellaneous Prohibitions and Restrictions) Regulations, 1958, the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and the London Traffic (Parking Places) Consolidation Regulations, 1957. The Abstract says that this is only a list of the principal Acts the contents of which have to be observed by what I care to call the "learned taxi driver". Today, the book contains only 32 small pages compared with the 96 presented to the taxi man in 1921.
The plethora of Acts and regulations would take a considerable time for even the most skilful lawyer to digest, leave alone the unhappy driver of a cab. In the circumstances, the House will no doubt wonder how the driver of any hackney carriage can possibly avoid making himself liable to penalties under Section 56 of the Hackney Carriages Metropolis Act, which reads as follows:
If he shall make use of any abusive or insulting language or be guilty of any other rude behaviour"—
we are talking about a taxi driver now—
to or towards any person whatsoever"—
the penalty for which is the forfeiture of £5 and, in default of payment, commission to the common gaol or house

of correction and, after conviction, to the possibility of the Commissioners of Stamps, if they so think fit, to revoke his licence and to refuse to grant him any other licence.
That provision still exists on the Statute Book and it also fixes a similar penalty—and I emphasise that it is similar—on the proprietor or driver of any hackney carriage, or any other person having the care thereof, who shall, by intoxication, or by wanton and furious driving, or any other wilful misconduct injure or endanger any person in his life, limbs or property. This is precisely the same penalty as for saying rude words after having to digest all that amount of law. The House will probably regard this as ridiculous.
Believe this or not, Mr. Speaker, but Section 55 of the same Act reads:
If the driver of any hackney carriage"—
and there are only non-horse-drawn hackney carriages in London now—
shall leave such hackney carriage unattended in any street or road, or at any place of public resort or entertainment, whether such carriage shall be hired or not, it shall be lawful for any officer of police, constable, or other peace officer, watchman, or patrole, to drive away such hackney carriage, and deposit the same, with the horse or horses belonging or harnessed thereto, at some neighbouring livery stables or other place of safe custody; and such driver shall forfeit twenty shillings for such offence; and in default of payment of the said penalty upon conviction, and of the expenses of taking and keeping the said hackney carriage and horse or horses, the same, together with the harness belonging thereto, or any of them, shall be sold by order of the justice before whom such conviction shall be made, and after deducting from the produce of such sale the amount of the said penalty, and of all costs and expenses as well of the proceedings before such justice as of the taking, keeping, and also of the said hackney carriage, and of the said horse or horses and harness, the surplus (if any) of the said produce shall be paid to the proprietor of such hackney carriage.
This Act applies also to Leicester and there is not a single horse-drawn carriage in Leicester. Some time ago, a summons was issued against the driver of a hackney carriage—not in Leicester—because he had left it in a cul de sac where it could not possibly have interfered with anybody. It is true that the magistrates dismissed the summons and did not impose a penalty and could not have imposed the additional penalty of selling the mythical horse or horses, harness and so on.
Section 17 of the 1843 Act imposes the following obligation to the taxi driver:
Every licensed driver, conductor (and water-man) shall at all times during his employment, and when he shall be required to attend before any justice of the peace, wear his ticket conspicuously upon his breast in such manner that the whole of the writing thereon shall be distinctly legible; and every driver, conductor (or waterman) who shall act as such, or who shall attend when required before any justice of the peace, without wearing such ticket in manner aforesaid, or who, when thereunto required, shall refuse to produce such ticket for inspection, or to permit any person to note the writing thereon, shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of forty shillings.
It is not unknown for a taxi driver to be rebuked by a court for not wearing the badge even when giving evidence which had no connection with his occupation. Why should he have to wear his badge at all times during his employment? I do not understand, but I am sure that the Home Office does. His period of employment obviously includes the time when he is not actually driving, but that is how the Act reads.
Last Session, the House gave me leave to bring in a similar Bill and on that occasion I quoted from a book written by a working taxi driver, Mr. Maurice Levinson. It would not be out of place to quote a few words from it today. He remarks on the strangeness of the Public Health Act, 1936, which says that it is an offence for a taxi driver to carry a corpse or a person suffering from an infectious disease. In the next breath it says that he can. He comments:
I challenged any lawyer to make head or tail out of the following. Before I copied it out of the `abstract of laws' I read it four or five times, and I still don't know what it means.
Here is the wording:
…it is an offence for the driver of a public conveyance knowingly to convey a person suffering from a dangerous disease, i.e., smallpox, cholera, diphtheria, membranous croup, erysipelas, scarletina or scarlet fever, or any of the fevers known as typhus, enteric, relapsing continued or puerperal, and other infectious disease to which the Act has been applied by the L.C.C. or a sanitary authority.
That seems to be clear enough, or so the writer says, but it adds:
The driver of a cab may refuse to convey a person suffering from a notifiable disease until paid a sum sufficient to cover loss and expense incurred in having the vehicle disinfected.
Which of the two provisions is the driver to accept, the first or the second?

Apparently a driver is allowed, after all, to convey a person suffering from a contagious disease if he is compensated for disinfecting his taxi.
What if a person dies from a contagious disease? This time the Public Health Act combines the two paragraphs into one and says:
A public conveyance other than a hearse may not be hired or used for conveying the body of a person who had died from a dangerous infectious disease unless the owner or driver is previously notified that the dead person died from such a disease. In that case he must have it disinfected afterwards.
I should imagine that if a person were suffering horn a contagious disease he would not bother to tell a taxi driver, anyway. The Public Health Act, 1936, would not enter his mind, unless he was warned about the situation in the first place by his doctor or any other kind of medical authority. This man writes:
No doubt many of my passengers have been suffering from venereal disease, especially when it was so widespread in the country during and after the war, and indeed, in most countries in Europe. Any passenger with any self-respect at all will keep it to himself. The last thing he will do is to tell a cab driver that he is suffering from any kind of disease. He knows that the first thing a cab driver will do is to churn his gears into action and clear off.
I do not want to abuse the privilege of the House by taking up more time than I am entitled to, but there are many more obsolete provisions which require to be swept away, many of which are so embedded in the Acts that they are extremely difficult to unearth. For instance, I am told that it is still the law that every taxi-cab has to carry a bundle of hay. I am also told that there are provisions concerning the question whether a person can relieve himself on the side of a cab, and if so, on which side. Apparently these provisions are contained in some fascinating, obsolete Acts.
It is obvious from what I have said that it is time the situation was altered. I am sure that the House will agree that we cannot allow these obsolete statutes to remain in force. I am, therefore, asking the House to give me leave to bring in a Bill to deal with some of these provisions in the Metropolis, and perhaps later Leicester and similar constituencies will be included in a Bill introduced by the Home Office when it realises just how silly are some of the present provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir B. Janner, Mr. Deer, Mr. Sidney Irving, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hoy, Sir M. Galpern, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Awbery, Mr. Lipton, Mr. Holman, Mr. Ginsburg and Mr. Pavitt.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES

Bill to repeal certain obsolete provisions of the law relating to hackney carriages in the Metropolis, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th April and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

Orders of the Day — SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2.—(RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION TO INTESTATE ESTATE.)

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end to insert:
(b) where an intestate is survived by the issue of a husband or a wife, such issue not being also issue of the intestate, but is not survived by any prior relative, such issue shall have right to the whole of the intestate estate, provided that for the purposes of this paragraph "issue" shall not include children of the aforementioned husband or wife who were more than 18 years of age at the date of the marriage of the husband or wife to the intestate, or the issue of such children.
In this Clause we are dealing with the order of priorities for the disposal of an intestate estate, and the purpose of the Amendment is to bring into that order of priority the step-children of the intestate person.
The Clause details not only the kind of relatives who are to succeed to an intestate estate, but determines the order in which they are so to succeed. Any category of relative mentioned in one of the paragraphs has priority over the categories of relatives mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs. The Amendment as drafted would put step-children into the priority of succession at paragraph (b). In other words, step-children would come in immediately after the natural children of the deceased person.
Although the Amendment brings stepchildren in at that point, what I am most concerned to do is to establish the principle that step-children should succeed at some point or another. It does not matter particularly whether they are established in the order of priority at the point suggested, or at some other point. The important thing is to establish the principle that step-children should in certain circumstances be entitled to succeed to the estate of an intestate person.
This matter was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, although it was not raised on precisely the Amendment that we are discussing now. It was pointed out then that Clause 2 as drafted went into a detail about relatives, which brings in practically every kind of relative that one can define. It brings in not only parents, and brothers and sisters, but grandparents, brothers and sisters of grandparents, cousins, and various other relatives. The intention of the Clause taken as a whole is to try to repeat in intestacy the kind of disposition which the intestate person might have made if he had made a will.
The main argument for including stepchildren is, I think, the simple one that a testator would certainly consider leaving his money to his step-children before he would consider—this, of course, is in normal circumstances, and there may be exceptional ones where this would not be true—leaving his estate to some of the remote relatives referred to in the Clause, and certainly before he would allow the estate, in the absence of any relatives at all, to lapse to the Crown as ultimus haeres. But the Clause as drafted would allow the estate to go to the Crown rather than to step-children. That seems to me to be intrinsically unsatisfactory and unreasonable. It does not seem to represent what a normal person would want to do with his estate if he made a will.
There may be many circumstances in which there is a close personal relationship between the intestate person and his step-children. On the other hand, there may be cases in which a parent and his step-children are not on good terms, but that can happen just as well with natural children. For that matter, that situation might exist between a


husband and wife, or between brothers and sisters, and between all sorts of people who are already provided for under this Clause. I therefore do not believe that that can be regarded as a substantial argument for excluding stepchildren altogether.
There seems to be some kind of remnant in the Clause as it stands of the idea that in intestacy one can provide only for blood relationships. I do not accept that as a principle. It seems to me that we ought to consider the matter in the much wider context of family relationships generally. Then, step-children and also step-parents—who are not covered by the Amendment, but in respect of whom an equally good case can be made out—would come within the context of what we would like to provide for upon intestacy. I do not believe that the argument about blood relationships has any substance.
4.0 p.m.
Nor is there anything in the argument that the step-children might not have been living with the intestate person. This argument applies equally to all kinds of relatives who are already included within the provisions of the Clause. It applies to grandparents, to brothers and sisters of grandparents, and to even more remote relatives. That, too, is an insubstantial argument.
Nor, considering the provisions that we already make under the Clause for step-brothers and step-sisters, is there any substance in the argument that the step-child will have an opportunity of succeeding to the estate of his natural parents. If it is good to extend the order of succession to step-brothers and step-sisters, the argument that by putting step-children into the Clause we would be giving them an additional advantage—since they might succeed to the estate of their natural parents—is not a valid one.
The final argument used by the noble Lady in Committee was that when a person married someone who had already been married, and had already had children, he did not take the whole of that person's family into his family and, in particular, he did not necessarily take the children of his new wife into his family, especially where he married rather late in life and where his new wife already had grown-up children.
The Amendment specifically provides for this situation by excluding any children of the deceased person's husband or wife—in the case where that husband or wife had been married before—where these children were more than 18 years of age at the date of the marriage to the intestate person. This would exclude the possibility of grownups, as distinct from children, coming into the order of succession of their step-parents even though they were grown up at the date of the marriage of their step-parents to their natural parents.
That was the only reasonable case that could have been made against the previous Amendment in Committee, although I did not think that there was a great deal of validity in it. We have now provided for that in the new Amendment, and in those circumstances there seem: to be absolutely no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, and why step-children should be completely eliminated from the right of succession.
In Committee, many hon. Members drew attention to cases within their own knowledge where intestate persons would certainly have wished to include their step-children in the sharing out of their estates. Many hon. Members must have come across cases of that kind in the normal course of their Parliamentary duties In those circumstances it seems only right that we should provide for step-children at some point in the Clause. If it is not to be in paragraph (b)—although I think that that is the right place—then it should be in some other part of the Clause. In all the cir-circumstances, and in view of the strong arguments expressed in Committee and the quite inadequate answers of the Government, I hope that they will now change their minds and agree to the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has said, the effect of the Amendment would be to bring the step-children of an intestate into the line of succession to his estate immediately after his own children and his children's issue. We had a full debate on this subject in Committee, but the Amendment has a new feature. It contains a


provision that the step-children of an intestate may enter the succession only if their age did not exceed 18 years at the time when their father or mother married the intestate. This point was raised briefly in Committee. I listened carefully then, as I have today, but I cannot say that I feel convinced by the argument that the hon. Member has put forward with considerable feeling.
I do not wish to go over again all the ground that we covered in Committee, but I want to give the reasons why I take the view that, on principle, stepchildren should not be given a right of succession in the estate of their stepparent. The hon. Member recognised that to insert the Amendment just before the existing paragraph (b) might not be the right place. Halfway through his speech he said that he would prefer to see the estate go to the Crown rather than to remoter relatives. But he himself moved paragraph (h), which greatly extends their right.
One of the main reasons for not accepting the Amendment is that for many centuries it has been the established practice that succession is based on blood relationships. He asked why, instead, we should not base it on family relationships. I do not feel justified in making a major change of this nature after the considerable debate that we had in Committee and bearing in mind that there has been no representation on the point outside the House.
The Mackintosh Committee, on whose Report the Bill is based, made no mention of having received any evidence concerning the succession rights of stepchildren; indeed, its only references to succession of step-relationships was in paragraph 14, where it rejected a suggestion that failing all next-of-kin a stepparent should be admitted to the succession. It is some years since the Mackintosh Committee reported, and the Bill, which has gone through the House with considerable publicity, will have provided ample opportunity for some expression of opinion outside, but we have received none of this nature.
Another main reason for rejecting the Amendment is that we ought to avoid conferring double rights of succession. The Bill does this in the case of an adopted child. That child is brought

into the succession of the person who has adopted it, but it loses all rights of succession in the family of its natural parents. If we brought the step-children into the succession of their step-parents it would be necessary, in order to avoid double rights of succession, to proceed as in the case of adopted children and to debar them from succeeding to the estates of their natural parents—who might still be alive if there had been a divorce—and from any right of succession arising from those natural parents.
In many cases such a provision would be unacceptable. For those reasons I feel that step-children should not be brought into succession. I do not alter my view because the Amendment now provides for an age limit of 18 years. It is an age limit which would bring in one person and exclude another because of a difference of a year in their ages. I suggest that that would be an artificial and, I think, an unsatisfactory device. For these reasons I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. George Lawson: I am very disappointed with the reply from the Under-Secretary of State. The noble Lady has spoken of having no representation from outside. But she will remember that our proceedings in Committee received very little publicity. The matters which we discussed were much too difficult to be written about by most Pressmen and, certainly, they were not matters about which stories could easily be made. In consequence, those matters were largely missed by the Press. Many people would not know that such questions were discussed.
I wish to remind the noble Lady that there was a substantial difference of opinion in the Committee and hon. Members on her side supported the proposals then made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). In fact, there was a bit of a row after a vote had been taken because some hon. Members on the Government benches had indicated during the discussion that they favoured the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend; and then they obeyed the crack of the whip, and voted contrary to the view which they had expressed. An attitude which received substantial support was indicated by the hon. Member for


Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). Reference was made to step-children who might have been away from the family home for years, or who might never have been residents there, and the fact that an injustice might arise if they inherited an estate.
That point has been met by my hon. Friend, and in so doing he confronted us with a position which must be confronted. It formed the basis of an argument advanced in the Committee discussions with which so many hon. Members opposite expressed sympathy. There have been two wars within the memory of most hon. Members and as a result many married women were made widows. A great many of those widows married again. There must be many families which include stepchildren who have grown up in the household. To all intents and purposes the second husband has been their father and has never been thought of as anything but their father.
It may be that the step-father's business has been run by his step-sons. But should he die intestate, and there is no question of his desires having been expressed in a will, the step-children will have no rights regarding his estate.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It seems to me that all these children would be over 18 years of age.

Mr. Lawson: This is how my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton met that objection. He recognised that a valid objection was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, and I accept that.
We are here dealing with the other situation, involving children who have grown up with the step-parent. There is no recognition for those children. I cannot understand the argument advanced by the hon. Lady about transferring blood relationship to family relationship. We are making the laws and dealing, in the main, with ordinary people whose estates are small. We are not greatly concerned with the aristocracy and their blood relationships. If a member of the aristocracy is not catered for, I am not greatly concerned. We should not shape our laws with the aristocracy primarily in mind, and their

so-called claims to an ancient descent. We should think more of modern conditions.
When thinking of blood relationships and ancestral descent I am reminded of the argument advanced by H. G. Wells. He asked from whom was one descended, from one's father or mother? I presume the answer is, from both the four grand-parents; the eight great-grand-parents; the 16 great-great-grandparents; the 32 great-great-great-grandparents; the 64 great-great-great-great-grand-parents; and if one can double the calculations sufficiently quickly one may go on. In a very short time we can count more ancestors than there are people in the world. To my mind, this makes nonsense of arguments about blood relationship. We have reached the stage where far more intimate than blood relationship is the connections of family, of people who have lived, worked and sometimes fought. Such a connection establishes bonds.
If, by means of the Bill, we are endeavouring to get as nearly as possible to what was the intention of a person win dies without leaving a will, we ought to ensure so far as possible that his estate goes to those whom he would have wished to benefit from it. I submit that we should do an injustice if we cut out the rights of step-children in circumstances such as I have described. A family connection is far more important than any question of blood relationship, and I hope that the noble Lady will change her mind and be prepared to accept this modified Amendment.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: My name has been mentioned as one who was sympathetic towards something on the lines of this Amendment, so perhaps I may be allowed to make a personal explanation.
When I spoke in sympathetic terms during the Committee stage, I mentioned that there were cases in which people might benefit by the acceptance of such an Amendment. But I was careful to point out—my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State took me up on it—that there mere also some hard cases from the other point of view.
I suggested to my noble Friend that she must consider an Amendment on


much narrower terms than the present one. On reconsideration, however, I agree with my noble Friend that it is impossible to cater for every different set of family circumstances. That being so, I must oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for explaining the Amendment to me and pointing out that I had not read it properly. Having listened to the argument—this is the first time I have heard it, because I did not have the privilege of serving on the Scottish Standing Committee—it seems to me that my hon. Friends have a very good case.
There is no doubt that amongst ordinary folk, if a man marries somebody who has been divorced, or a widow with a young family, that family becomes the family of both of them and most men accept their responsibilities and bring up the children as their own. This is the common experience in life. While there is a small number of cases to which this probably might not apply, they are a small minority. Certainly, in my experience of mixing with people, I find that they treat children in this category as their own. I am sure that by far the greater number of them would wish their children to become eligible if the step-parent died intestate, as the Amendment suggests.
The Under-Secretary of State has not made a good case. The hon. Lady says that we suggest changing a long-established custom of basing inheritance upon blood relationship. What does it matter? This is not an immutable law of nature which nobody can change. We are not here to uphold something simply because it is a thousand years old. If that were so, there would be no need for a House of Commons. We should all be back in our constituencies enjoying ourselves. There would be no Acts of Parliament if we were never to change anything. It is the biggest piece of rubbish that I have heard as an argument that this is an old tradition and, therefore, we must not change it.
We are concerned here with justice. The Amendment of my hon. Friends is more likely to achieve justice than if we leave the position as it is. Even though we might disturb ancient concepts, at least we should have done more to re

move injustices than to create them. In other words, the balance is on our side. I am confident that that would be the result of the Amendment.
What is more, if the Government and the Law Officers advising them applied their minds to this matter, they probably could have made suggestions to limit the possibility of creating injustices. By and large, our proposal would give justice to a very large number of children or grown-ups. For that reason, we should accept the Amendment, even though it would disturb the ancient conception of basing inheritance upon blood relationship.
We could have a long discussion on blood relationship. It is difficult at times to discover what the blood relationship exactly is. I am certain that quite a number of well-to-do families in Scotland would have difficulty in tracing their real blood relationships. Anybody who knows anything about Scottish history knows this to be true.
Therefore, while I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell that this is an important matter—nobody would underestimate its importance—I suggest that it should by no means override the consideration of trying to give a fair deal to a very large number of ordinary people. This is something that the House of Commons should do and it should make no fuss about it.
The hon. Lady also said that double rights of succession would be created. What about it? I do not think that in the great number of cases of which I know more difficulties would be created in that connection. The trouble with the Government is that they approach these matters generally from the view of what I would call the sort of upper classes of society, the people who have large estates and fortunes. The whole law of property is based largely upon this.
The law of property and succession has been based on the fight for people who have got things usually by robbing somebody else, because they happen to have been born the wrong side of the blanket or in some other way. They have fought to retain this tradition and at great expense, with the assistance in many cases of subservient lawyers, of which history is full—there are many


good lawyers, too, I know, but there are a lot who have been subservient to vested interests—they have created a body of law concerned mainly with promoting and protecting that position. It is time that we let a little bit of fresh air into this business and realised that these are a minority of people.
In the Amendment, we are concerned with the vast number of ordinary people. When I look at my constituency, the great number of people there are ordinary men and women, living ordinary peaceful lives and contributing to society. It frequently happens that a man marries a widow or a young single woman, or a young single woman marries a man with two or three children. My hon. Friend spoke of one or two cases, but we all know dozens of cases in which this happens. The vast majority of them grow up like every other family. The man loves the children even though they are not his. He does what he can because he wants to help them. He makes sacrifices to give them a good education.
Then, however, we are told that the children are not in the line of succession in the matter of the estate. Surely this must strike the hon. Lady as being quite wrong. The great number of men and women would want them to be considered, and we are trying to put into legislation what we feel to be the natural instincts of a great body of men and women. We certainly would not do this by rejecting the Amendment.
I hope that the hon. Lady will have second thoughts. Just because hon. Members opposite, who tended to support this case in Committee, have not stood by the views which they then expressed is no reason why the hon. Lady should not display a little more courage than her hon. Friends have displayed. I hope that the hon. Lady will do this and consider accepting the Amendment.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: This is one of those peculiar occasions when I am in some difficulty. Unlike the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who was not a member of the Committee, it was my good fortune—or was it?—to occupy the Chair during the Committee stage of the Bill. There is a certain amount of precedent in this

House that any hon. Member who is asked whether he will accept the Chair of a Committee knows very well that if he speaks on the Second Reading of a Bill, he is, as Chairman of the Committee, precluded from speaking or taking any part in the Committee stage.
There is also the rule that by a peculiar circumstance an hon. Member who has been in the Chair of a Committee is allowed to address himself to the House on Report and Third Reading although he has been Chairman of the Committee. I do not wish to pursue, in particular, the arguments for or against the Amendment, ably moved as it was by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), the rebuttal to which was made equally ably by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) truly said that this was a Bill of intricacy of Scottish law and, because it was intricate, did not attract a good deal of attention from the Press—and one needs to be careful when speaking in this Chamber about the Press. But my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), when speaking oil a similar point in Committee, made quite clear what we were talking about.
4.30 p.m.
This Amendment seeks to rectify a state of affairs which, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, concerns people who are affected by intestacy. The point that I wish to raise is the same as that which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West in Committee. I am sure that hon. Members opposite as well as on this side of the House feel deeply about this matter and have opinions about the unfortunate circumstance that could occur and which the Amendment seeks to rectify. I do not propose to speak about the Amendment, but surely it is our duty, as Members of Parliament—

Mr. Willis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must speak about the Amendment.

Commander Donaldson: Yes.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he does not intend to speak about the Amendment which is before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I heard the hon. and gallant Member's remark with surprise. I was waiting to hear what he would say. The House will be aware that remarks must be directed to the Amendment under discussion.

Commander Donaldson: I stand corrected. Most people sit corrected. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When I said what I have just said, and will not repeat, I was trying to express the intention of the Amendment.
The Amendment seeks to rectify what hon. Members opposite feel to be an injustice to certain categories of people. The whole of their argument would be completely offset if those of us, of whatever party, who stand in public places in our constituencies did our utmost, assisted by the Press, to make clear that this circumstance which is envisaged in the Amendment would never exist if people would do the simple act of making a will.
We are discussing intestacy. I take it to be our duty to influence people, whatever their politics may be, for we all have in our constituencies people who do not agree with us politically. If we could make it clear this afternoon that the problem which is envisaged would be overcome in its entirety if people could be persuaded, as I hope increasingly they will, to take the precaution of making a will the Amendment would not be necessary and the suffering anticipated by hon. Members opposite would not arise.

Miss Margaret Herbison: It is evident that the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) will not be with us in the Lobby when we vote on this Amendment. The remedy which he seeks is that in all our constituencies we should let people know what will be the result if they have step-children and do not make a will.
That applies to the whole of the Bill. The Bill was brought forward because of the intricacies of intestacy, and a very high-powered Committee was set up, chaired by Lord Mackintosh. Lord Mackintosh made certain recommendations, and 12 years later, after a great deal of pressure from this side of the House, the Government have decided to bring in a Bill to deal with intestacy—

not just intestacy as it applies to stepchildren, but as it applies to many others.
I am amazed at the arguments of the Under-Secretary. She told us, first, that since the Committee stage of the Bill there has been no public representation made to her or to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) made it perfectly clear that the Bill was so intricate that it had had very little Press publicity. I look up to the Press Gallery. Usually, when we are discussing Scottish matters, we see a number of well-known faces there. We do not see them today, because of the intricacy of the Bill and the difficulties of reporting it or of arousing interest in the country. I would say that there is a very little chance of the public knowing about the Amendment which my hon. Friends moved and supported in Committee.
The noble Lady also told us that the Mackintosh Committee made no recommendations on this matter. That Committee reported 12 years ago and in the intervening period there has been, as in many other things, a great change in public opinion, particularly in relation to social matters in the country. If I had been the Under-Secretary I would not have relied on either of those two points in opposing the Amendment.
May I put one or two matters to the noble Lady? Does she know that when a widow remarries and has young children she has to give up all her claim to a widowed mother's allowance, and that any allowance paid on behalf of those children is immediately stopped? Why does this happen? Why does our National Insurance law make it obligatory on the mother, when she remarries, to give up all that she previously had, not only for herself but for her children?
The law says that the step-father, from the moment he marries the mother, is responsible for the children—just as responsible for them as he would be for his own children. If, when those children reach the normal school-leaving age of 15, they intend to stay at school for further education, and an application is made to the local authority for a grant, the income not only of the mother, but of the step-father also, is


taken into account. The Education Acts put the onus where it should be placed—fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the step-father, since he has accepted the responsibility not only of keeping a wife but of keeping the children that she had before she married him.
It seems strange to me that the Government should be so adamant in rejecting this Amendment. What happens if a man dies intestate and the children, perhaps 17 years of age, are about to go to a university? There is nothing for them, according to the law as it stands at present. The whole future of those children, who until that moment were the responsibility of the step-father, can be jeopardised. Have the Government taken that matter into account? It seems that they have not.
The whole argument of the noble Lady is that of blood relationship. Blood relationship may be very important to those whom we in Scotland call the landed gentry. These are the very people who would be careful to make a will. 'That often happens. Even if they did not, why do we penalise the vast majority of Scottish people because of this small number of landed gentry?
I have understood all the way through Second Reading and the Committee stage that what we are trying to do in the Bill is to dispose of a man's estate as he might have disposed of it had he made a will before he died. I am certain that the vast majority of men would have made a will in favour of their stepchildren, particularly with the limitation that we have put in the Amendment that the step-children must be less than 18 years of age at the time of the marriage.
In this great hunt for blood relationship does the noble Lady argue that any man would want whatever money or estate he had to go to the brothers and sisters of his grandparents, people whom often he had not known about and whom often he had never seen in his whole life? Yet the money or the estate a man leaves can go ultimately to the brothers and sisters of his grandparents.
I plead with the noble Lady to give more serious consideration to the points which have been made and give effect to what we have been trying to do all through. We should make the law in the Bill accord with what I am certain would be the wishes of the vast majority

of men who die intestate with stepchildren for whom they accepted in earlier years the full financial responsibility, apart from all the affection and care that they bestowed on them.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I sympathise with my colleagues who have supported the Amendment. The cases to which they have referred would arouse the sympathy of u; all. The Bill is not controversial in the party sense. We are all trying to improve the law and ensure that justice is done and that no hardship occurs when a person dies intestate.
Most of us think along the lines that, if a man adopts children, he becomes responsible for them and should make provision or them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that the lawyers of people with property usually ensure that these sort of things are provided for. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will agree that most of those about whom he spoke never have any difficulty in ensuring that their property is disposed of according to their wishes.
In my experience the most bitter quarrels take place and the most bitter feelings are generated, not amongst the aristocracy, who hardly ever see each other, but in a village or a street or a family where property has gone to somebody who does not deserve it. I do not want to go into all the hypothetical cases which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) might raise on the other side. The very fact that we talk about the great majority being in one category means that there is a minority to whom injustice would be done.
On the earlier stages of the Bill I suggested to the noble Lady that there is no reason why we should guess at what will be justice in these cases. What do we have courts for? One of the troubles about the House is that, when passing a Bill with penalties, it wants to lay down the penalties in advance of the judge hearing the evidence. Here we are laying down a penalty without knowing the facts of each case.
4.45 p.m.
I assume from the fact that the noble Lady has opposed the Amendment that she will not accept it and that the Whips


will be put on to ensure that it is rejected. I have been here long enough to know what will happen. Consideration should be given to the possibility of appeals to the courts in difficult cases so that the courts can judge them. This takes place with regard to marriages. If it is a marriage by habit and repute, the court, after hearing all the evidence, judges whether the couple are legally married, in which case they are married. If the evidence is such that the court does not consider them to be married, they are not married.
Is it not equally important that somebody should judge whether these children are members of the family? They may be members of the family, but I can visualise cases when the husband does not adopt the children on marrying a widow with children, and the children go to stay with their mother's relatives, say, the children never being members of the family. In such a case the children may never have seen their stepfather. Their mother may never have told him that she had had children beforehand. Under the Amendment they would automatically inherit. I can visualise many problems arising which would cause injustice to other people and not to the children.
We cannot judge in advance in every case. I think that the noble Lady is right. I think that my hon. Friends are right. Whatever is decided, we shall leave somebody on the wrong side of justice. It should not be beyond the capacity of the Solicitor-General for Scotland and his legal advisers to think of a method of referring doubtful cases to the courts, perhaps flagrant cases where this rule should not apply, with a right of appeal, thus providing the ability to obtain the judgment of a court on what is right and what is wrong. The courts may not dispense anything like absolute justice, but they are much more likely to come to a correct conclusion than we are, legislating in advance of the evidence and of the knowledge. We are apt to think of one or two cases on either side in which things are either black or white, but law is not like that. Families are not like that. Too many complicated cases arise in regard to property for the House to legislate in advance.
Yet if we put it into the Bill in this hard and fast manner, as it is in the Bill already, or as it would be in the Amendment, we are bound to cause injustice and hardship to someone. Therefore, some power should be given to the court to be flexible, to give judgment according to its wisdom and according to the evidence presented. My own experience is of the bitterness which can be aroused in families, of the breaking up of families, not because there is a great deal of property but sometimes because there is too little property. They fight all the more over a little than they do over a lot.
The Government, in another place, since they cannot do it here, should consider drafting an Amendment to cover this point and perhaps reconcile the two points of view, both of which have a certain amount of justification but would bring injustice in some cases to someone.

Mr. William Small: I support the Amendment and cannot but admire the splendid manner in which it was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). I hope that the noble Lady is open to conviction and will change her mind. I believe that she is a very enlightened person, a good example of the modern age in which we live.
However, perhaps speaking from a different point of view, I can tell her that the law of inheritance, in which she may have a deep interest, the Married Women's Property Act, and such things, are not relevant comparisons to the subject under discussion. Today, it is not realistic to suggest that people should rationalise their affairs by going to lawyers and writing out their wills. However desirable this may be, these things are not done by the majority of people today. Property is not dealt with like that. Most owner-occupiers believe that they are doing the right thing by their wives if they cover their mortgage by taking out an endowment policy on their lives. It is not much good telling young people in their twenties or thirties that they should rationalise their affairs in the way that has been referred to, because they have such a long expectation of life.
It is a long time since I heard the word "step-child". I suspect that the


noble Lady will not have heard it for a long time, either. I was interested in the clinical manner in which she read her brief. She did not display the warmth I generally expect from such an enlightened person in a case such as this, because we are here dealing with the welfare and interest of human beings. I am sure that the noble Lady would go to the barricades in defence of children who were in intellectual or moral danger and would want to bring in a Bill to protect them.
We are dealing here with a member of the family unit. The reason why the expression "step-child" has not been heard for a long time is that the idea has grown up that a child should not receive adverse publicity, even within his own family. In these days, one does not often hear a member of a family say, "Johnnie is a stepbairn". Today, nothing like that takes place even within a family. Nowadays, in a community, at school, or elsewhere, no account is taken of the fact that the child is a stepchild.
If we are to have any guiding light at all in matters of this kind it must be that we must try to cater for individuals. Is it fair that a child should be penalised because his step-father, who has looked after his intellectual interests and seen to his moral welfare, fails in one material aspect, namely, to rationalise his affairs? Can it not be assumed that his intention in the material sense is to do natural justice to his step-child and let him inherit if something happens to him.
The noble Lady should consider this matter in this modern light when making law for the future. If I instanced a case of child neglect of any kind, I am sure that the noble Lady would rush to the barricades in defence of the child. She should do so now in this case, thus ensuring that no one will suffer because a step-parent has failed to rationalise his affairs.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I want to make a very brief intervention. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) I have not had the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee, because we were on another Committee, which was also one of great importance;

but many of us have had Questions down over the years on the necessity of bringing up to date the laud of succession in Scotland.
We were fobbed off on many occasions by promises of legislation and it has taken 13 years for us to have the opportunity of dealing with this matter. I was very impressed by the presentation of the Amendment and the support given to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). They put up a very strong case. The noble Lady, in the rather cold hearted manner in which she dealt with it, did not do justice to the case that vas put or the support that was given to it by other hon. Members.
I have no dubiety about the hon. Lady's position in this House. I have tried before, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. W. Small), to bring forth the finer feelings that should be in her breast. I know of the fount of inspiration which she has for the: protection of birds but she does not seem to have the same under- standing for the protection of human beings, which is what we are dealing with now.
We are looking for some streamlining of our lawn and a little humanity. The reason for the Bill was because of the great number of complaints we have had about the operation of the laws of succession in Scotland. What we need is the wind of change, which was mentioned by the former Prime Minister, and whom we very seldom see now on the belches opposite. He told us that his party was a party of progress. When the noble Lady ties her case to the fact that this has operated for 'hundreds of years and, therefore, it should still be in operation, that is a very weak argument.
The noble Lady's other argument regarding the ties of blood relationship is woefully weak in this age in which we live. What she is really saying is that she will not take the opportunity to bring the laws of succession up-to-date. She is saying that blood relationship should be the determining factor in the line of succession and that what the Amendment asks for is not in the line of succession. The noble Lady is actually saying that step-children are


not in the family, and if the father has died intestate they are not to be considered after his death as being in the family.
The law is creating a distinction that ordinary, decent human beings do not apply to the family circle. I object to this very much. We all of us know of marriages where step-children are in the family circle. It is only in very unlikely circumstances, and where great ignorance exists, that there is any dissimilar treatment of children in those families.
I know of no family in which there are step-children where this distinction is made. One has to remember that often the step-children are younger than the 'other children in the direct line of succession. The father's children are often older and the older children look after the step-children. They take them to school and have a protective influence over their lives. The break comes because the father has not made a will and the step-children are treated in a very obnoxious manner so far as the family circumstances of love, comfort and general provision are concerned.
I would make bold to say that if we were able to collect the voices of the people of Scotland we would have a huge majority. in favour of this Amendment. My hon. Friends have gone to the greatest extent in trying to meet the case put by the benches opposite in regard to children of 18 years of age and the date of marriage so that they are excluded. If they are out of the family home, working for themselves and possibly getting married, I can understand that point of view.
5.0 p.m.
I am not all that attracted to the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn), because I am not out to create another lawyers' paradise. I fear that that would be the danger of his suggestion. I realise that my right hon. Friend made that suggestion sincerely, but mainly in the hope of wooing the noble Lady into accepting the principle of the Amendment. I regret that my right hon. Friend's tactics will not bring us much success on this occasion.
I was astounded to hear my right hon. Friend say that the Whips would

be on hon. Members opposite on this issue. What a deplorable situation. What would the people of Scotland think about an extremely important human matter like this being decided with the Whips on? I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) laughing. This is not a laughing matter. I know of families who will be affected if provision is not made by the head of the household before his death and I can assure the hon. Member that, in that event, they will not regard this as a laughing matter.
I regret that hon. Members opposite will be driven like sheep, willy-nilly, into the Lobby against the Amendment. That is not only deplorable, but is against the best interests of Scotland. It is not good law-making and hon. Members who do that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Mr. William Howie: I hope that the Scotsmen present will not be too offended if a sort of step-Englishman takes part in the debate. I will be brief, so that they can get on with it.
There are two aspects of the Clause which immediately strike me. The first is probably the psychological point which underlies the Government's intention. In folklore and fairy tale the stepparent is generally regarded as a villain and is usually cast on the side of wickedness. While that may at one time have been true, the development and growth of human relationships has brought that situation to an end. The Bill seems to assume that step-parents are still wicked and that they would have the intention of not looking after their stepchildren by not providing for them. That assumption is out of keeping with the age in which we live.
The second point concerns the so-called danger of double inheritance and the importance of a blood relationship. There are many aspects of this, some of which have been raised, although I will not go into them in detail. Has the noble Lady considered the position of the wife? She is often entitled to double inheritance from her own parents or grandparents and also from her husband. She is seldom a blood relation of her husband. On the few occasions when she is there is a great hullabaloo and I cannot believe that


the Government want that to be the procedure from now on.
The relationship between the husband and wife is a family one, although it has grown into a legal one as well. The relationship is basically the same between step-parents and step-children and surely it is right that what is just for the wife should, in equity, be just for the child.
The Clause contains a sort of jig-saw puzzle; a mass of double inheritance. We find inheritance by way of brothers, sisters, parents, grannies, uncles, aunties—probably ox and ass, for all I know. There is a morass of double inheritance and I hope that the Government will think again on this issue and, above all, accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I rise with some hesitation to say a word about the Bill because I am not a member of the Scottish Bar but of the, English Bar.
We have with us a new Solicitor-General for Scotland and he must be aware that the Bill is an attempt to modernise Scottish law. There are many respects in which Scottish law is in advance of English law, but there are other spheres in which English law is in advance. This is one of them. English law recognises step-children while Scottish law does not. Thus the Bill is an attempt to bring Scottish law up to date and up to the level of English law. I urge the Solicitor-General to advise the Under-Secretary of State along these lines so that the Amendment, which is just and proper, may be accepted.
I do not intend to address the House on the aspects of justice. Many confusing issues have been introduced into the debate on this topic. Justice has been argued and the case for the justice of the Amendment has been well presented. I urge the Solicitor-General to agree to bring Scottish law up to the level of English law in this respect.

Mr. William Ross: One of the troubles with the Scottish representatives on the Treasury Bench is that their arguments are not only predictable, but disappointingly so. I had hoped that on this occasion we would have heard the Solicitor-General, because when we began our deliberations on the Bill he was not

yet an hon. Member of the House. We were then told about the wonderful things that were coming when eventually he took his seat. It is worth remembering that he only just got here. It might be that he will not be here for very long.
The Under-Secretary said that the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) ware made with considerable feeling. Apart from that, I noticed that my hon. Friend spoke with considerable power and that, for the rest of the House, with considerable persuasiveness.
I deplore the attitude of Government spokesmen on issues such as this, when they listen to the arguments put forward and then reply merely by reading a typewritten brier. On this occasion I did not hear the typewriter going while the Government reply was being delivered, so I presume that the brief was prepared in advance. If we have got to the stage when Ministers cannot rise and answer arguments—or, if the arguments are sufficiently persuasive, have the power to accept Amendments—we will need all the time to call for the presence of the absentee laird, the Secretary of State for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is looking somewhere for a Countryside and Tourist Amenities Bill.
I considered the arguments used by the noble Lady not only predictable but even worse than those used by Government spokesmen in Committee and I am glad that on this issue there has been such strong support from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) brought the matter down to its basic facts. It is no good the noble Lady saying that the Mackintosh Committee did not consider this and that there is no public demand for it. She must know that the Mackintosh Committee reported 13 years ago—on 9th December, 1950.
The Mackintosh Committee stated that there had been very considerable opposition to the main principle of wiping out primogeniture and introducing the right of women to succeed. What did the opposition say to the Mackintosh Committee? The opponents of change, who included the Faculty of Advocates, the Court of the Lord Lyon and several representatives of the landed interest


maintained that there was no public demand for any change.
The Mackintosh Committee overturned that, and went into the merits of the case, based on changed social and economic conditions. I do not think that economic and social conditions have changed so much since 1950 as to overturn the justice of our demand that the Government should face the facts of family life in Scotland—and no one should know more about the facts of family life in Scotland on this issue than the noble Lady.
We cannot get a great body of opinion because there are not very many of these people. Again, they are all affected by this problem at different times, and when their interests go by the board they do not create themselves into an organisation and speak with an articulate and effective voice. It is wrong for the noble Lady to use that argument.
The noble Lady argued the double right of succession, and on this point I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). We welcome him to our Scottish debates—if he does not watch himself he may find himself on the Scottish Grand Committee. As he comes from Troon, and is backed by the sound common sense of the Scottish worthies of Ayrshire, I am sure that his sound common sense would be as effective there as, I hope, it will be here today. He was quite right in what he said about double inheritance. We are in a jungle of double inheritance.
Let us get quite clear what it is we want. What we seek would be applicable only in Scotland. It would only apply to that estate where a man or woman did not leave a will. It would only apply to that part of the estate left after the statutory legal rights, expenses and the rest, had been allowed for. We would seek to dispose of the remainder, through general legislation, by interpreting what the wishes of the intestate person would have been. We place that in paragraph (b).
Paragraph (a) gives to the children of the deceased the right, in the first place, to the whole of this section of the intestate's estate. We must bear in mind that if the deceased has children of his

own those children take precedence, and no one else down the whole channel that has been mentioned comes in at all. All ask is that after that point these others should be brought in.
To meet the case of the person who married late in life, my hon. Friend went further by limiting the right to those step-children of the deceased who were 18 years or under at the time of the marriage. There is, therefore, considerable restriction both in relation to rights and precedence, and in relation to the actual step-children who will be affected.
I thought that we might get from the noble Lady some understanding of the strong expressions of opinion in Committee, but she has moved not a single inch. My hon. Friend went further and said, "We do not insist on their being there. Put them in after brothers and sisters, put them in after the spouse, put them in after grandchildren—but give them some right, and establish the principle". The noble Lady was not even prepared to look at that—and, incidentally, she took up my hon. Friend incorrectly on what he said about ultimate heirs. She was even prepared to argue that although these people had been accepted as members of the family the intestate would have preferred the rest of the estate to go to the Crown. That is utter and insupportable nonsense. Even if these step-children were put in at the very end of a very long line, it would be something.
5.15 p.m.
As for blood relations—goodness gracious! We have already made a change in relation to adopted children. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Luton realises that the wife comes into this table for the first time. The wife is not a blood relation, but if we bring in the wife there is no reason for not bringing in the wife's children, who were accepted as an obligation when the couple married. As for double inheritance, these children may have already inherited. Adopted children may have already inherited. The wife may have already inherited. There is, therefore, no real argument on the basis of double inheritance; that principle, too, is accepted, and should not be a barrier to acceptance of this Amendment.
Scottish opinion has been made quite clear by my hon. Friend, and justification based on the social facts in Scotland today is all on our side. I can only think that the refusal of the Government to budge on this is a last-ditch stand because they know that after the Bill leaves this House it faces its worst trial of all in another place. I would warn my hon. Friends that just as one Bill has been lost this week so may this one also be lost, but I am sure that Scottish public support for the Measure would be strengthened by acceptance of this Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was quite right when he said that the law of property in Scotland has been dedicated to the preservation of feudal privilege and is now quite out of touch with modern conditions. The Government's resistance shows their unwillingness to move with the times, and that makes poor showing for those who say that they are determined to modernise.
We did not fight the Bill in Committee on any party basis at all, as I am sure that hon. Members opposite who served on the Committee will appreciate. There was a certain amount of cross-voting. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be allowed to express their opinions here fairly freely. The noble Lady says that we cannot interfere here because this has been the law for 1,000 years. That is the worst argument of all, because if that argument stood we would not have the Bill at all. It is simply because we recognise, after all this time, after the Mackintosh Report, and all the rest, that some change is necessary that we have this Bill, but we suggest that something else ought to be done.
It may be many more years before we get a chance to make a change—let us seize the present chance while we can. My hon. Friends have proved our case to the hilt, and I sincerely hope that the Government, even at this last minute, will give us a crumb of comfort and hope by saying that they will do something, if not exactly on this Amendment than elsewhere in another way.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I think that this has been a very good debate, with arguments of great force and conviction on both sides. The hon. Member for

Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who spoke first, and many other hon. Members—the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herb son), the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), whom it was good to see really enjoying himself in one of his rousing speeches, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), and the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)—all asked whether this provision could not be considered. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked whether this could not, perhaps, be done in another place.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said, in his usual fair way, that he thought there were good arguments on both sides of the case and he therefore asked whether we could not, instead of accepting this Amendment or keeping the Bill as it is, make some provision whereby in cases where hardship would be caused there should be resort to the courts, which would be able to make a decision one way or the other. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman asked that there should be a middle course. I say to him that I do not really think this would be a good solution.
There are, I regret to say, throughout the Bill instances, which anyone could quote of hard cases, because it is impossible on the law of property and succession to devise a system which will not cause hard cases in some instances. It is quite cut of the question. Various hon. Members have said that they feel that the step-father who takes on the responsibility of step-children treats those children in a manner by which they are virtually members of the family.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that I of all people ought to know this principle, and I agree with him that that is exactly so. That is why I have listened to this debate with very great interest and have studied the whole problem very considerably before coming to the House and before the question was raised in Committee. It is perfectly true that there have been a very large number of cases, particularly after the war, where people have married again and taken on the responsibility of children and where there has been a very happy


family relationship. However, one has to remember that those children have had rights in their natural parent's estate.

Mr. Millan: Of course, that is equally true of adopted children whose parents have died before they were adopted, which is a very common case.

Lady Tweedsmuir: That is perfectly true, but in the Bill we specifically make provision that where there is an adopted child it must give up his or her rights under the natural family. We make this provision specifically in order to ensure that this case should not come about.
I am certain that all the cases which have been mentioned are probably very common, but one has to remember that there is the other side of the case about the intention of the intestate. People have said that what we are trying to do is to carry out what we think is the intention of the intestate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who at one stage was prepared to support this provision that step-children should have a right of succession, mentioned that there are hard cases on the other side. I think that that is perfectly true, and I would say in passing to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) that while what we are talking about now applies to intestacy, I agree with him. I hope that what will result from the Bill is that all hon. Members will take every opportunity to suggest to their constituents that they should make their wills.
However, we are now dealing with intestacy and one has to remember that there are instances where the deceased would not have left his property to his step-children. There are also cases where the deceased, had he thought about the matter at all, would have been rather upset if, for instance, his brother or his sister had been left out of the

succession. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock says, "Let us get over this question by, if necessary, putting them right at the end of the list," right back to the ancestors in paragraph (h). I think that the argument for keeping the matter on blood relationship is really a very simple one. It is the one that the child will have had the right of succession in the natural family and that one cannot always say what the deceased would have done for his step-children.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady is not doing too well on that.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make his case look better by making murmurings while sitting down.
I say to the House, after most careful consideration, that I think we should get into as much difficulty if we accepted the Amendment as if we stuck to the present arrangement, which, at any rate, is clear and is based on the assumption that the step-children inherit from their natural parents.

Mr. F. J. P. Lilley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the original law in this instance is not quite Greek? I am advised by a very well-known man of law in Scotland that this is so. This law, in fact, states that whether it be a step-child or an adopted child—my friend said that it did not matter a damn one way or the other—they should both be interested.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I think that this would be a matter for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and I do not think that I would divert from what I have said.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 223.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[5.29 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Callaghan, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowles, Frank
Carmichael, Neil


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boyden, James
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Barnett, Cuy
Braddook, Mrs. E. M.
Chapman, Donald


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bradley, Tom
Cliffe, Michael


Beaney, Alan
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Collick, Peroy


Benn, Cyril
Brookway, A. Fenner
Braddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grossman, R. H. S.


Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dalyell, Tam


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Darling, George




Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Frederick


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Deer, George
Jeger, George
Prentice, R. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Purvey, Cmdr. Harry


Diamond, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Doig, Peter
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Redhead, E. C,


Driberg, Tom
King, Dr. Horace
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Coins valley)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)


Edwards, walter (Stepney)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, William


Forman, J. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McCann, John
Skeffington, Arthur


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
MacColl, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Ginsburg, David
McInnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Gourlay, Harry
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Small, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Smith Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Grey, Charles
McLeavy, Frank
Snow, Julian


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W,


Gunter, Ray
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mapp, Charles
Stewart Michael (Fulham)


Hannan, William
Marsh, Richard
Stones, William


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher
Symonds, J. B.


Hayman, F, H.
Millan, Bruce
Tomney, Frank


Healey, Denis
Milne, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin


Henderson, Ht. Hn. Arthur (Rwfy Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Monslow, Walter
Weitzman, David


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Moody, A. S.
Whitlock, William


Holman, Percy
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Wilkins, W. A.


Houghton, Douglas
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Howie, W. (Luton)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hoy, James H.
O'Malley, B. K.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will
Woof, Robert


Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pargiber, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John
Mt. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Parkin, B. T.






NOES



Agnew, Sir Peter
Cleaver, Leonard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Cole, Norman
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Allason, James
Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor


Anderson, D. C.
Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.
Gower, Raymond


Barlow, Sir John
Corfield, F. V.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Grosvenor, Lord Robert


Bell, Ronald
Craddook, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Berkeley, Humphry
Critohley, Julian
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bevins, Rt. Hon, Reginald
Crowder, F. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Biffen, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Biggs-Davison, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bishop, F. P.
Dance, James
Hastings, Stephen


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hay, John


Bossom, Hon, Clive
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hendry, Forbes


Braine, Bernard
Doughty, Charles
Hiley, Joseph


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, J. E. B. (S Norfolk)


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Elliott, R. W. (Newe'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hogg, Quintin


Billard, Denys
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Errington, Sir Eric
Holt, Arthur


Burden, F. A.
Enroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hopkins, Alan


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Farr, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitoham)
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes-Young, Michael


Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Channon, H. P. G.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Chataway, Christopher
Freeth, Denzil
Jackson, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
James, David


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Gammans, Lady
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gardner., Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Clarke, Brig. Terenoe (Portsmth, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey




Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Talbot, John E.


Kirk, Peter
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Partridge, E.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Lagden, Godfrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Leather, Sir Edwin
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pitt, Dame Edith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pounder, Rafton
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lilley, F. J. P.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Prior, J, M. L.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Turner, Colin


Litchfield, Capt. John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pym, Francis
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Loveys, Walter H.
Quennell, Miss J, M.
van Straubenzee, W. R,


Lubbock, Eric
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Vane, W. M. P.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. sir John


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, w.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wade, Donald


Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Walker, Peter


Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wall, Patrick


Maitland, Sir John
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Marten, Neil
Russell, Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, William


Mawby, Ray
Seymour, Leslie
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sharples, Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mills, Stratton
Shaw, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Montgomery, Fergus
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morgan, William
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Morrison, John
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woodhouse, C. M.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stainton, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Woollam, John


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stodart, J. A.



Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 2, fine 21, at the end to insert:
(b) where an intestate is survived by a husband or a wife but is not survived by any prior relative the surviving spouse shall have right to the whole of the intestate estate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be convenient also to discuss the next Amendment, in the hon. Member's name, in page 2, to leave out lines 36 to 39.

Mr. Ross: We are still on the same Clause, dealing with the rights of succession to intestate estate. We are concerned now with the position of the surviving husband or wife. I suppose that we should pay due tribute to what has been done, because for the first time in the law of succession, after a battle of over 1,000 years, we have recognised the right of the wife. The active discussion on this matter has ranged through the whole of this century. It reached the length of having private legislation and led eventually to the establishment by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) of the Mackin

tosh Committee which reported favourably in 1950. Since then we have had 13 years of pressure, discussion and battling to give the widow the right to share in succession.
What we now suggest is that, as it has taken so long to look at this, and as the Government have placed the surviving wife, as also the surviving husband, in the situation of paragraph (e), we should reconsider that which places them right after the rights of children. Let us appreciate that the prior right in relation to an intestate estate after legal rights have been exacted goes, first of all, to the children. According to the Bill as it stands, failing that it goes to the parents and brothers and sisters, and failing that to the brothers and sisters.
But when we recollect that there are rights of representation, I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) in the last debate comes in here as well, that there are a tremendous number of relatives who take precedence over the wife if she is the surviving spouse in relation to the intestate estate.
Frankly, we do not think this is in accord, or would be in accord, with the wishes of the intestate. I do not think that it is in accord with social aspects. I know what the noble Lady will say, that we have made changes, changes which we pressed for and welcomed, in relation to legal rights, that we have given the surviving spouse very considerable legal rights in relation to the house and finance, and in respect of moveables I think it is £2,500 if there are children and £5,000 if there are no children. Even granting that, we feel that with the still to be disposed estate under intestacy it is only fair to place the claims of the surviving spouse higher.
The position is certainly changed by the new legal rights that we have given, but during the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) argued very forcibly that where an estate consists mainly of heritable property and where the legal rights do not spread over—in other words, although we have assimilated for succession purposes the heritable and moveable property, in relation to the legal rights they are not so assimilated, and so one gets different results in relation to whether the bulk of the estate is moveable or heritable—the surviving spouse can do very badly out of this. We think it is only fair, and we hope we shall be able to persuade the House, to think about this and elevate the rights of the surviving spouse to the position after that of the children.

5.45 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: An Amendment in almost identical terms to this one was moved during the Committee stage and we had a considerable debate on it. It differs from the one we have just discussed in the sense that whereas on the first Amendment I felt that as a matter of logic and principle even, if hon. Gentlemen opposite did not agree, I could not accept it, on this Amendment it is entirely a matter of judgment and largely one of opinion.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said that the surviving spouse did not come into the table of succession as laid out in Clause 2 until the recommendation of the Mackintosh Committee put the surviving spouse in under paragraph (e). The

reason why the spouse was put rather farther down the table than the hon. Gentleman and his supporters would like was because of the provision of legal rights. That position, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, is greatly enhanced by what we have been able to do in this Bill. I think, and the Law Society and others with which I have discussed the question think, that the position of the surviving spouse on intestacy is a sound one under the Bill as it stands.
One has to remember that on balance we are talking about the medium or small type of estate. We are hardly ever dealing with the very large estate, because in these cases nearly always a will would be made. Therefore, one has to remember that if the legal rights provided for in the Bill are taken out of a medium or small estate before Clause 2 comes into operation, we shall then see a very considerable amount taken out of the estate which remains to be disposed of.
The spouse will be entitled to take, first of all, the deceased's interest in the dwellinghouse; second, the furniture and plenishings to a maximum value of £5,000; and third, a sum of money amounting lo £2,500 if there is issue and £5,000 if there is no issue, and for jus relictae, one third of the moveable property if there is issue and a half if there is no issue.
I do not know whether it is in order to say this on the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, bat perhaps one might just draw attention to the fact that we have all just been privileged to witness an historic occasion—my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), after his illness, passing through the Division Lobby. I am sure that the whole House is glad to see him here.

Mr. Ross: It was the wrong Lobby, however.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Happily, as I had my right hon. Friend's support, I felt that he was in the right Lobby.
It will be realised that the surviving spouse before Clause 2 comes into operation will get a very considerable part of the property. That being so, I think that to take the surviving spouse


up to the position suggested in the Amendment would mean probably that virtually nothing would be left for the brothers or sisters or for any surviving parents.
I think one has to remember that children—this is a particular quality of Scottish family life—like to think about their parents and what they have managed to do for them, and they also care usually for their brothers and sisters. I think that if the surviving spouse is well cared for, as I believe she is, under the Bill on intestacy, then I think that these remaining relatives should have a chance to inherit what is left of the estate. I therefore advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: When the noble Lady began her reply I thought she was going to accept the Amendment. She pointed out how different it was from the previous one. She said that the previous one was a matter of principle—which we did not accept. Then she told us that this one was a matter of judgment and opinion. From what she has said, I think that her judgment and opinion are faulty in this matter.
On this Amendment she has used an argument which she dared not use on the previous one, for if she had done it would have backed up our case. She said that intestacy usually applied to small estates. We tried to make our case on that on the previous Amendment. Once the children are taken care of, as they are, in coming under paragraph (a) and taking prior position, the next in line, particularly in a small estate, whom any man or woman who died intestate would have wished to come next, is the surviving spouse. It seems to me, with particular reference to small estates, that it would be very fair to move this class of person up to paragraph (b), following the children.

Mr. Small: I think that I now understand the real trick of the noble Lady's argument. She rested her case on the last Amendment on the classical historical argument which is expressed in the words, With all my worldly goods I thee endow". When a man takes a wife, she has no domicile of her own; whether he is domiciled in a foreign country or not, she is entitled to occupy

that domicile and have the benefit of all that is therein. The idea is that this state of affairs is for perpetuity, for eternity, although, of course, we do know that divorce can sometimes come later.
If the noble Lady wishes to use that historical argument on the previous Amendment, she should accept it on this one.

Mr. Willis: I did not have the benefit of hearing the arguments in Committee. Not having had time, owing to other Parliamentary duties, to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in Committee—not that I should like to read the debates of the Scottish Grand Committee—I am trying to follow the argument on the Amendments as they come forward. On this Amendment, I was struck, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), by the fact that on this occasion the noble Lady used the argument that there would be only a small amount left. That is an argument which would have weighed on our side on the previous Amendment. It would not have weighed on the noble Lady's side because, otherwise, she would have used it. Her failure to use it on that occasion indicates that it lent support to our case.
I wonder whether brothers and sisters should be put before the wife. Of course, there is great affection between parents and children and between brothers and sisters, but I take it that the noble Lady will not suggest that this is a great deal more than that between man and wife. This is a matter of judgment. There are cases in which, perhaps, a man would have wished to leave something to his brothers and sisters or mother and father, particularly if they were not in very good circumstances, but I believe that he would be inclined to leave it to his wife in spite of the fact that she is entitled to certain other things under the Bill. Most men would wish their wives to have as much security as they could possibly give them.
Cases which have come to my attention have caused me to wonder why preference is sometimes given to children, as it is in the Clause. On many occasions, the mother is left with practically nothing and the children have everything. The


mother then has to administer an estate, work in a shop, or something like that, for many years; the estate is not hers at all but she is working for her children and running it for them. I do not believe that it is always right to put the children first, and I incline to the view that the most important person is the mother, particularly if there are young children. The case for trying to ensure that the woman is in a position to be able to face all the responsibilities confronting her on the death of her husband is one which appeals very much to me.
On the whole, I should have preferred to see the wife put in at least after the children. As I say, I am not certain that the wife should not come in at (a), having regard to the cases which have come to my attention in the past. Certainly, the wife should come second and be given priority over the relatives.
We all know of the enormous amount of migration from Scotland which has gone on over the years. A man goes to Australia; he loses touch with his relatives, perhaps seeing them only very occasionally. That tie tends to become weakened but the tie of the man's own family remains the real thing. I am very sorry that the noble Lady did not consider the Amendment rather more kindly than she did. She has not answered the case which we have put.

Mr. Millan: We have had a very disappointing reply from the Under-Secretary of State, As she said, this is very much a matter of judgment in considering exactly where one should put the surviving husband or wife in the order of priorities, and it is fair also to admit that we have at later points in the Bill made additional provisions for a surviving spouse which, in small estates, go a long way to ensure that the bulk of the estate goes to the surviving spouse. Some of the provisions made later have been improved by suggestions made by our side, and we are very glad, therefore, to welcome what is being done.
However, a serious point still remains here. Most of us would consider that, on an intestacy, the wife and children should, in normal circumstances, take the bulk of the estate, to the exclusion of any other relatives. Although there may be cases in which that would be rather unfair, in the vast majority the

emphasis ought to be on providing for the wife and children. I admit that in most cases, certainly in small estates, this is what we are doing under the Bill, but it still remains true that cases can arise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, when this is what we are not doing. This is so because the Government are still maintaining the increasingly artificial distinction between heritable and moveable property for the purposes of legal rights.
6.0 p.m.
At present, if there is a house, the widow has the right to the house and to the furniture and fittings in it up to a certain limit. She also has a right to the first £2,500 of the estate if there are children and the first £5,000 if there are not children Over and above that, after taking into account these various prior rights, she has certain legal rights of jus relicti ever the remainder of the estate but only in so far as it is moveable property. We argued in Committee that after these other legal rights of jus relicti had been taken into account the other legal rights should apply to the whole of the remainder of the estate, whether it is moveable or heritable estate because there may be cases in which heritable estate—land and property—makes up the bulk of the estate. Despite what we are doing in the Bill to provide additional rights for a surviving widow or widower, in those cases really bizarre effects can arise from the application of Clause 2 and there could be a distribution of the estate which no one could reasonably call fair.
I gave an example in Committee which I should like to give again. Admittedly it deals with a large estate, but we are trying to put matters right in the Clause for all kinds of estate, and certainly for small estates, but also in the case of large estates where there may be intestacy. I gave the example of an estate worth £120,000 which consisted of a house worth £10,000, moveable estate worth £10,000 and heritable estate worth £100,000. The man died leaving a house and no children. The wife would take about £19,000 or, perhaps, £20,000 and, the only other surviving relative being a nephew, £100,000 of the estate would go to him.
I do not believe that anyone could possibly defend that kind of distribution of an estate. It arises because we do not allow legal rights to adhere to heritable estate in the same way that they adhere to moveable estate. Therefore, the distribution of an estate still depends, quite unnecessarily, on the division of the total estate between moveable property and heritable property. If the bulk of the estate is moveable, the surviving widow has very much greater rights than if the bulk of it is heritable property. Since heritable property, like moveable estate, is often just one kind of investment as against another, there seems no reason why we should continue to make this distinction.
We argued about this unsatisfactory division between heritable and moveable estate at great length in Committee without making any impression on the Government. They produced no arguments which even approached validity in the circumstances of 1964. While we have this distinction and the possibility, or probability, of injustice arising under Clause 2, it seems that the only remedy we have is to make absolutely sure that the widow or widower is protected by moving their right to the intestate estate further up the order of priority laid down in Clause 2.
If we had this assimilation of heritable and moveable estate for the purposes of legal rights, I should be willing to accept the argument that there is a case for bringing in brothers and sisters and grandparents. But as long as this is not the case, and as long as it is possible that a widow will come off very badly in the distribution of an estate compared with a nephew, grandparent, cousin or someone even more remote, we must try to give the maximum protection to the widow. I have heard nothing from the Under-Secretary of State to demonstrate that our judgment is wrong. In all the circumstances, I think that our judgment is about right. If the noble Lady is not able to be a little more helpful than she has been, I hope that my hon. Friend will carry the Amendment to a Division and vote for it.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He

devoted a great deal of his argument to the question of assimilation of heritable and moveable property. Such organisations as the Law Society, which originally accepted his point of view, have, because of the new provisions in the Bill about the added legal rights for the surviving spouse, accepted that the position should stay as it is with this separation of heritable and moveable property.
The example which the hon. Member gave dealt with a large estate. He calculated that if the estate was worth £120,000 the surviving spouse would have £20,000 and he argued that it was unfair that the present table of succession laid down in Clause 2 should operate so that the remainder would go first to children and then to parents, brothers, sisters, and so on. The hon. Member argued that the surviving spouse should have much more than £20,000 in such a case.
I think that most hon. Members will agree that in the case of large estates people make wills, but, if they have not done so, I hardly think that £20,000 would be insufficient for a surviving spouse. Not all surviving spouses are young. Everyone seems to argue on the basis that all surviving spouses are young widows or widowers. But that might not be so. In the case of a large estate, it would be perfectly logical for the intestate to have wished that, after his widow had been properly provided for, the rest of the estate should go, for example, to his brother. This shows how difficult it is for hon. Members to interpret the exact wishes of an intestate.

Miss Herbison: Surely the noble Lady is trying to make very bad law in basing her argument against our Amendment on the age of the widow, whether she be old or young. The intestate might have a brother older than his wife who would benefit.

Mr. Willis: I do not follow the hon. Lady's argument that because a person gets old and his wife gets old with him he becomes less fond of her and does not want to leave her anything. Is not this a curious argument to adduce?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I did not say anything about whether a person was fond of his wife or not. That did not come into my argument at all. If the hon. Member will listen for a minute, I will try to explain my argument.
I turn to what is without doubt the bulk of estates with which we are trying to deal in the Bill—the small or medium estates. Certainly under these provisions the surviving spouse would inherit the bulk of the estate and the children, if she had children, would benefit after that. The position as it affects the small estate is fair. We must remember that the intestate might well wish to leave something to a brother or sister or even to a parent. It is a very natural wish.

We cannot possibly interpret accurately everything that an intestate would like to do. On a matter of judgment, I beg to differ from the hon. Member for Craigton and I ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 202.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
[6.11 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
O'Malley, B. K.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, William
Oram, A. E.


Barnett, Guy
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Will


Beaney, Alan
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bence, Cyril
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Healey, Denis
Peart, Frederick


Blackburn, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, Norman


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice R, E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowles, Frank
Holman, Percy
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Boyden, James
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rankin, John


Bradley, Tom
Howie, W.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James H.
Rhodes, H.


Brockway, A, Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rogers, G. H. R, (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cliffe, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collick, Percy
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefieid)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Darting, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
McCann, John
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Tomney, Frank


Doig, Peter
McInnes, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Warbey, William


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Weitzman, David


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Waiter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, Archie
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Mapp, Charles
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Wilson, nt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
Winterbottom, R. E.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Millan, Bruce
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, Walter



Grey, Charles
Moody, A. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.


Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Neal, Harold






NOES



Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bossom, Hon. Clive


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bourne-Arton, A.


Allason, James
Bldgood, John C.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Anderson, D. C.
Biffen, John
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullard, Denys


Barlow, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bishop, Sir Patrick
Burden, F. A.


Bell, Ronald
Black, Sir Cyril
Butcher, Sir Herbert




Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Holt, Arthur
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Channon, H. P, G.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chataway, Christopher
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ross, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cleaver, Leonard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Cole, Norman
James, David
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooke, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roots, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Seymour, Leslie


Critchley, Julian
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sharples, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kirk, Peter
Shepherd, William


Currie, G. B. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dud'ey (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lagden, Godfrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Leather, Sir Edwin
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, J. A.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Doughty, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Duncan, Sir James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Talbot, John E.


Elliott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lovers, Walter H.
Tapsell, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mac Arthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
McLaren, Martin
Temple, John M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Finlay, Graeme
 McMaster, Stanley R.
 Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
 Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
 Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Freeth, Denzil
Maddan, Martin
Thorpe, Jeremy


Gammans, Lady
 Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
 Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turner, Colin


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mills, St ration
Turton, Rt. Hon. R, H.


Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grant-Ferris, R.
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Grimond, Rt. Hon. R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Morgan, William
Wade, Donald


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morrison, John
Walker, peter


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wall, Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Whitelaw, William


Harmon, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hay, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Henderson, John (Catheart)
Partridge, E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Hendry, Forbes
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian



Hill, Mrs. Evefine (Wythenshawe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Mr. Batsford and Mr. Pym.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton



Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, to leave out paragraph (h) and to insert:
(h) where an intestate is survived by brothers or sisters of any of his grandparents (being a parent or parents of either parent of the inestate), but is not survived by any prior relative, those surviving brothers and sisters shall have right to the whole of the intestate estate;
(i) where an intestate is not survived by any prior relative, the ancestors of the intestate (being remoter than grandparents) generation by generation successively, without distinction between the paternal and maternal lines, shall have right to the whole of the intestate estate; so however that, failing ancestors of any generation, the brothers and sisters of any of

those ancestors shall have right thereto before ancestors of the next more remote generation.
This Amendment adjusts an addition which was made to Clause 2 of the Bill by an Amendment which was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). The hon. Member's Amendment had the effect of restoring to the Clause a paragraph dealing with the succession of brothers and sisters of the grandparents of the intestate and with the succession of even more remote relatives. This had been included in the Bill which was first introduced last Session, but we omitted the


provision when this Bill was introduced in the present Session of Parliament. At the time, the hon. Member thought his Amendment must be allowed because it was simply restoring a provision which was previously in the Bill. In the meantime, the earlier paragraphs of Clause 2(1) had been redrafted, and we found, on further study, that the paragraph restored by the hon. Member's Amendment did not conform to the pattern set by the paragraphs and that it therefore required redrafting for this reason.
It also required redrafting because when it is necessary to go further back than grandparents and their brothers and sisters the paragraph does not make it clear that the brothers and sisters of an ancestor of the intestate take precedence over the ancestor of the next or more remote generation. Therefore, I move this Amendment to take account of those two points. We take the opportunity of splitting one paragraph into two because we hope that will make for easier study.

Mr. Ross: I do not want to quibble about what the Government are doing. It would be rather unfair because, after all, this was an Amendment of ours which was accepted. I think the hon. Lady is right in stating that this is much clearer we have got two categories, and it is far better to deal with them in this way, since we do get a better pattern. However, even as we get it clearer we appreciate just how far back we are extending, and it makes it all the more difficult to understand why the poor step-children were left out.

Mr. Hendry: While I welcome this Amendment as being an improvement on the present wording, in that it eliminates certain ambiguities which it seems the present wording has, even so it is not altogether clear, and I wonder if my hon. and learned Friend would assure me whether or not there is representation in the case of brothers and sisters of an ancestor who have predeceased the deceased. If there is representation it seems to me we might get into a very complicated family tree. These were difficulties which were put to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who instanced certain circumstances in which the winding up of an estate might be almost interminable.
I would ask my hon. and learned Friend whether under this Amendment an estate might be eventually wound up in the event of various beneficiaries not being ascertained.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. D. C. Anderson): There is representation in the circumstances which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) described, and the representation occurs by virtue of the representation provisions which apply in other circumstances under the Bill. It will in certain circumstances lead to uncertainty with regard to persons who are to take where collaterals are the beneficiaries—descended, for example, from the brothers or sisters of great-great-grand parents. The executor is under the duties of prudent inquiry, which he possesses in his capacity as a trustee, an alternative capacity which all executors possess. If he carried out his inquiries diligently and with reasonable competence he would be protected if there did emerge more remote relatives than he had anticipated. Also, there are in the Bill further provisions which we shall come to which do provide further protection in those circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out from "blood" to the end of line 23 and to insert:
and in the said subsection prior relative ', in relation to any class of person mentioned in any paragraph of that subsection, means a person of any other class who, if he had survived the intestate, would have had right to the intestate estate or any of it by virtue of an earlier paragraph of that subsection or by virtue of any such paragraph and section 5 of this Act".
This is a drafting Amendment to correct an internal contradiction which arises from the present wording of subsection (1,c) of Clause 2 when read with the present definition of "prior relative" in subsection (2). Paragraph (c) says that the brothers and sisters of an intestate are entitled to succeed to the estate if there are no prior relatives, but, of course, brothers and sisters are themselves prier relatives on the present interpretation of the expression, because they are mentioned in the preceding paragraph (d) of the subsection along with the parents of the intestate.


A similar contradiction arises in paragraph (d), which says that the surviving parents are entitled to succeed if there are no prior relatives; but the parents are themselves prior relatives, because they are mentioned with brothers and sisters in an earlier paragraph of the subsection. The Amendment removes these contradictions by redefining the expression "prior relative".

Mr. Ross: This only shows, Mr. Speaker, what happens when a Bill is raced through the Scottish Committee. It is only because of the undue haste, and pressure to hurry up and get this Bill through, that we omitted to notice this slipshod draftsmanship—which, I must admit, is now fairly unusual in the Scottish Department.

Mr. Willis: Oh, no, My hon. Friend must really not run way with the idea that slipshod draftsmanship is now unusual. He should cast his eyes over the Scottish provisions in the Housing Bill.

Mr. Ross: I am dealing only with those Bills which are entrusted to the Scottish Committee. Of course, if it is known that Bills are going to an English Committee, or a predominantly English Committee, then they may be justified in a more careless attitude, because they know that those Bills will not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny they get elsewhere.
However, this only shows how careful we have to be about these questions of priority, and who is "lower than" somebody else. I am sure the hon. Lady is still working out what she meant the other day when she described somebody as being "lower than a sheriff", and when we see how, after 13 years of discussion of the complexities involved, we eventually get this Bill which, after all, is Mark 2, and we still, even then, have errors of draftsmanship, we realise that we must be very much more careful about what is put before us in this House. However, it is an improvement and we do not object to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(SUCCESSION OF COLLATERALS.)

6.30 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "a parent" and to insert "an ancestor".
This is a consequential Amendment made necessary by the restoration of paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of Clause 2. Before this paragraph was restored to the Bill, the succession of collateral stopped at brothers and sisters of parents of the intestate. Now that it has been restored, the succession is open to brothers and sisters of any ancestors of the intestate and that is why it is necessary to substitute the words "an ancestor" for the words "a parent" in line 25.

Amendment agreed to.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from "between" to end of line 33 and to insert:
those related to the intestate or, as the case may be, the ancestor through their father and those so related through their mother".

Mr. Speaker: I think it desirable that we should discuss with this Amendment the following two Amendments—which are not selected—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross): in line 32, leave out "consanguinean" and insert paternal", and line 33, leave out "uterine" and insert "maternal".

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am grateful that we can discuss them together, Mr. Speaker, because this drafting Amendment has been put down by the Government to honour an undertaking given in Committee when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) did not like the use of the words "consanguinean" and "uterine". He put down Amendments which would have omitted them from Clause 3, but withdrew them on my assurance that we would reconsider the drafting of the Clause. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Willis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) on having had the good sense to move the replacement of the words "consanguinean" and "uterine" with something rather more homely and more easily understood by the Scottish


public. We are also grateful to the Government for the Amendment which the hon. Lady has moved, although it is drawn rather differently from what was suggested by my hon. Friend.
I do not know why the Government kept these words in in the first place. There must have been great pressure from the lawyers' lobby, which is very powerful in this House and which we are always fighting in the interests of the Scottish people. One of the duties of lawyers is to see that their profession is kept filly occupied. While we are all in favour of full employment, I am not so sure that we are in favour of it for lawyers in dazzling ordinary citizens with these very old expressions. I congratulate the Government on displaying at least a little consideration for the ordinary men or women who are bereaved.
The new wording will be more understandable by ordinary people. I like the words "paternal" and "maternal". They are homely and good. They have a warmth. Everyone understands and appreciates them. They typify in themselves the sacredness of the home and give it meaning. I am sorry that the Government could not find it possible to use them instead of this rather uncolourful phrase, which includes a lot of words. They do not convey the sense of intimacy which one associates with the family. However, I am glad that the Government have at least got rid of the original and offending words.

Mr. Ross: We congratulate the Government on carrying out their pledge to see whether they could find new wording for this provision. I suggested the words "paternal line" and "maternal line", but it was pointed out that that line of succession was vertical whereas we also wanted to cover the possibility of collaterals.
My hopes ran very high when I saw that the Government had reinstated the missing paragraph (h). I hoped that this would include the words "maternal" and "paternal". I thought that after all there was to be statutory recognition of the value of the words "maternal" and "paternal". I thought that by the simple means of using these words—saving, as ever, any possibility of confusing the issue by adding other words—we would get a great improvement on

the original drafting. However, the Government, in their wisdom thought better.
The Government have, in fact, wiped out half a dozen words and replaced them with about 16. I suppose that that pleases the lawyers too. The principle of making the change was accepted before the solicitor-General joined the Committee and it may well be that he has insisted on using 16 words if the change was to be made.
I am sure that there will be depression in the minds of many former Lords-Advocate and Solicitors-General who grace the Bench of Scotland that the subtle Latin adornments have been removed from the law of Scottish succession. These are the words with which they have played, to the mystification of the multitude—" consanguinean "and others which sounded well but even better with" half-blood "in front of them; for example, "half-blood consanguinean" and "half-blood uterine". However, we should now be able to understand a little bit of Scottish law.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(REPRESENTATION.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
(2) The right of any issue entitled to share in an intestate estate by virtue of the foregoing subsection to be appointed to the office of executor on the intestate estate shall be postponed to the right thereto of any person who succeeds to the whole or part of the intestate estate by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Act apart from this section and who applies for appointment to that office.
This subsection is intended to make it clear that the person who shares in an intestate estate as representing a predeceasing relative of the intestate is not entitled to claim the office of executor in preference to a nearer relative of the deceased. addition it relieves doubt which at present exists as to whether, for example, at any time an intestate who shares in the estate as representing his father has the right to the office of executor before the deceased's father who has equal right with a brother under Clause 2(1,b) to share the intestate estate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) criticised the drafting of the original subsection in


Committee and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland undertook to re-examine it. This is the result and I hope that it commends itself to the House.

Mr. Millan: I am glad to welcome this Amendment, because, as the noble Lady said, I raised this matter in Committee. I thought that the drafting of the present subsection (2) was ambiguous. I am not sure that this new drafting is a model of lucidity, but it is very difficult to express this provision in plain English. Having looked at it from the layman's point of view, I must say that it is much clearer than as originally drafted and that the Amendment makes a good deal of improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(LEGAL RIGHTS OF SURVIVING SPOUSE IN CONNECTION WITH DWELLING HOUSE ON INTESTACY.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, after "that", to insert, (i).
Would it be convenient if with this we discussed the next Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Lady Tweedsmuir: This is a drafting Amendment. This and the next Amendment divide the proviso of subsection (1) into two, which makes for easier reading. The second part rewords the addition to the Bill which was made in Committee by an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). Subsection (1) provides, among other matters, that the surviving spouse of an intestate shall receive so much of the furniture and plenishings of the dwelling-house in which she is ordinarily resident as is included in the intestate estate. The hon. Member for Craigton moved and I accepted an Amendment providing that the furniture and plenishings to which the Clause applied should not exceed a value of £5,000.
At the time, the hon. Member said that he was surprised and gratified that his Amendment was being accepted without comment on its drafting, which he had put down in a great hurry. We naturally gave it closer study and we

found that it was necessary to make a slight amendment to it, because what the hon. Member originally suggested made it possible that it might be interpreted as having the effect that where the furniture and plenishings were worth more than £5,000, the surviving spouse would get none of them, and that was not what was intended by the Committee. The Amendment ensures that the surviving spouse will be entitled to the furniture and plenishings to the value of £5,000, but no more.

Mr. Millan: This Amendment is an improvement. I thought that it was too good to be true that not only did the Government accept my Amendment, but actually accepted the exact wording. I agree that the present wording of the Bill is rather ambiguous and that the improvement maintains the sense of what was originally intended.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 14, leave out from "and" to end of line 16 insert:
(ii) a spouse shall not be entitled under this subsection to receive furniture and plenishings in excess of a value of £5,000.—[Lady Tweedsmuir]

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out "applies" and to insert "apply".
This Amendment corrects a grammatical error which arose from an Amendment which was made in Committee. I understand that this correction has to be made by a formal Amendment.
Previously, the Clause referred to one Act of Parliament and the relative verb was in the singular. It now refers to the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, and the verb should be in the plural.

Amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
(c) the value of the intestate's interest in the dwelling house exceeds £10.000.
If it is convenient, there is also the consequential Amendment in page 6, line 25, at end insert:
or the sum of £10,000, whichever is the less".

Mr. Speaker: They can be discussed together and it is probably also convenient to discuss the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in page 6, line 1, leave out "interested" and insert "having an interest", and in page 6, line 3, leave out "of a historical nature". These fall if the Government Amendment is accepted.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is an important Amendment. Hon. Members who were members of the Committee will recall that Clause 8(4,c) was subjected to a good deal of criticism and that further consideration of this paragraph was promised.
Briefly, the Clause provides that the surviving spouse of an intestate shall be entitled to have the deceased's interest in any dwelling house in which he or she was ordinarily resident at the time of the intestate's death and also to the furniture and plenishings of that house. However, subsection (4) provides that in certain cases the surviving spouse will get not the deceased's interest in the dwelling house, but a sum of money equal to the value of that interest.
One of the cases covered in this way by section (4) is that where, on the application of any person interested in the estate, the Court of Session, or the sheriff, is satisfied that there are special circumstances of a historical nature connected with the house which make it proper that the surviving spouse should have the value of the house, but not the house itself. This case is covered by paragraph (c) of that subsection.
In Committee, paragraph (c) was criticised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). The main grounds of criticism were that it was not clear who was entitled to make an application to the Court of Session, or the sheriff, for a declaration that there were special circumstances of a historical nature connected with the house and, secondly, the very difficult matter of the definition of circumstances of a historical nature.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock suggested that the paragraph could be

omitted altogether. This I promised to consider, but I also gave a hint that I might consider the value of the house. After a great deal of thought—and in many ways there is hardly any part of the Bill which is more difficult—it was concluded that the paragraph suffered from the defects pointed out and that the best course was to omit it.
This we are therefore doing by these Amendments, but, at the same time, we are extending the device moved into Clause 8 in Committee by the hon. Member for Craigton. This is the fixing of an upper limit on the value of property which may be taken by the surviving spouse under this Clause. By the Amendment of the hon. Member for Craigton, a limit of £5,000 is placed on the furniture and plenishings.
The second Government Amendment places a limit of £10,000 on the dwelling house. This limit of £10,000 will apply in all cases and not merely in those which might have been covered by paragraph (c). On further consideration, I think that 10,000 is about the right sum and strikes a proper balance between the claims the surviving spouse and those of other relatives entitled to succeed to the intestate estate.

Mr. Ross: The Government are making a fundamental change, and one which I cannot readily support. What happened was that we gave the surviving spouse the right to the dwelling-house, or, if there was more than one, the house that she chose, in all cases of intestacy. That met one of the main causes of complaint in relation to the position of widows under the succession law of Scotland. I think that the noble Lady will agree that that was widely acclaimed, and, indeed, improved the Bill as we orginally knew it.
Certain questions arose when we discussed subsection (4) and the exceptions; when we discussed the cases in which it would be possible for persons, for some reason or other, not to be granted this right. When we discussed this in Committee, I was struck by the looseness of paragraph (c), and I wanted to know why
any person interested in the estate
—that is a rather loose definition, because interest in an estate is not the same as having an interest in the estate;


and I think that that was admitted by the noble Lady—should have the right to go to the Court of Session or the sheriff and plead special circumstances of a historical nature connected with the dwelling-house.
With all due respect to the noble Lady, I cannot readily see any connection between meeting the objection to that provision by taking out the provision altogether, and meeting it by making a limitation on the value of the house. I am sorry that I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Lady's speech, but I gather that that is what is being done, and that the Government are limiting the application of this right in subsection (1) to a house costing less than £10,000.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady knows much about the property market in Scotland. I live at a seaside resort where fairly small houses fetch £10,000. It is most unfair of the Government to have made this fundamental change without consulting anybody. Certainly, they have not consulted anybody on this side of the House. Hitherto, our arrangements with the Government have been fairly amicable. I do not think that any consideration has been given to this matter. This limitation was not considered when the matter was discussed in Committee upstairs, and the hon. Lady then made no mention of this question of a dwelling-house of a special historic nature. If I remember rightly, all that she said on this subject was that there might be a family connection with the house.
I hope that we shall get some other explanation for what the Government propose to do. I hope that they will justify their action, because our information about the value of property is that the increase which has occurred in the past few years in proceeding apace, and it therefore does not seem satisfactory to replace the right which is given without restriction in subsection (1) by an overall restriction in paragraph (c). I am appalled by what the Government have done. I do not think that there is any justification for taking out an unlimited right and replacing it with a purely monetary right and a restriction which, with the passage of time, will extend to more and more property and undermine the right that we have given in subsection (1).
I do not know whether the Government have considered that aspect of the matter, or have thought about how many people will be offended at this seeming breach of faith. I hope that the hon. Lady will look at this again, and if the Government insist on fixing a sum, they should think again about whether they have chosen the right figure, because the one now in the Bill may mean the loss of a family dwelling-house to the surviving spouse, and I think that that is something which we all wish to avoid. We may find that what we hoped would be an established right is being frittered away because of an Amendment which was unforeseen and unforeshadowed in our earlier proceedings.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I should like to speak again as nobody else seems to want to speak on what I think is an extremely important Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was the thinking behind this provision. He will remember the debate in Committee. He suggested either that we should omit paragraph (c) altogether, or that we should try to define "historical nature" in a much more definite way. The two Amendments which the hon. Gentleman seeks to make—

Mr. Ross: I wanted more than that. I wanted a clear definition of who the persons were who could apply to the Court of Session, because the Clause as it stands refers to
the application of any person interested
which is very wide indeed.

Lady Tweedsmuir: That is true, and I see that one of the hon. Gentleman's Amendments tried to meet that point by substituting the words "having an interest" for the word "interest".
But apart from that, the main debate centred round the question of circumstances of a historical nature, and the second Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman would make paragraph (c) have a very wide definition indeed, because it would read:
on the application of any person having an interest in the estate the Court of Session or the sheriff, on being satisfied that there are special circumstances connected with the dwelling-house which make it proper that this subsection should apply to the case…


I said in Committee that we had had great difficulty in trying to define circumstances of a historical nature because it did not necessarily mean that the house in question was of historic or architectural interest: there might also have been reasons why the family felt that the house should remain within the family.
I added:
…as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, one of the great problems is the value of the house. The surviving spouse, if she did not take the house itself, because of historical reasons, would get the value of the house. That might be a very considerable sum in certain circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 21st January, 1964; c. 194.]
That was what led us to the conclusion that the only way to get round this circumstance was to do what was done by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in an earlier case of furniture and plenishings, namely, to apply an upper limit. The hon. Gentleman says, quite rightly, that property values vary greatly, and for all we know they may go up in the future. That applies to the whole question of furniture and plenishings.
7.0 p.m.
The question whether the sum should be £10,000 is a very difficult one to decide. Perhaps it ought to have been £15,000 or £20,000. As we know, we pass these Bills and we constantly have to deal with monetary values. Time passes, and we find it necessary to introduce amending legislation in order to bring certain penalties or financial provisions up to date. But at this moment in time we must take some decision if we are to have a financial limit of any sort. As the Committee found it acceptable to have a limit on furniture and plenishings I thought that it would find it equally acceptable to have an upper financial limit on the property, remembering that we are dealing mostly with small or medium-sized estates.
We gave an enormous amount of thought to the possibility of defining "historical nature" more closely, but we found it almost impossible to consider every sort of circumstance. I suggest that if we accepted the hon. Member's Amendments we should not be giving any guidance to the courts as to what we meant by "special circum

stances". We might be asking any person with an interest in an estate to apply to a Court of Session or to the sheriff, maintaining that there were special circumstances connected with a certain house which meant that it should not go to the surviving spouse.
That being so, we cannot agree to a suggestion which gives the court of session no guidance at all as to what the special circumstances could be. I suggest that the acceptance of these Amendments would also leave the way open to the bringing of many court cases, which is the last thing that we want to do. The Amendments would leave the position too wide. The best thing to do is to impose an upper financial limit. Whether we now have the right sun is open to opinion. Considering the type of estate that we are dealing with, I thought that £10,000 would be fair, but I am prepared to consider a limit of £15,000 at a later stage.

Mr. Millan: I would ask the hon. Lady to look once again at the question of the upper limit of £10,000. We are here dealing with two entirely different matters. One is the elimination of paragraph (c). It is a matter of judgment whether vie should eliminate it altogether or try to amend it as my hon. Friend's Amendments would. If we retain the paragraph, even as amended, difficulties may arise in the shape of an increase in legal actions, and I believe that my hon. Friend would agree that there is something to be said for the Government's view that we should delete the paragraph altogether if it is found almost impossible to arrive at a precise form of wording.
The question of an upper limit of £10,000 is an entirely separate one. In Committee I moved an Amendment which imposed an upper limit of £5,000 on furniture and plenishings. I suggest that if we compared the figure of £5,000 for furniture and plenishings with any kind of upper limit value for a house we should arrive at a figure in excess of £10,000. This may not be important in the case of small estates, but we are not legislating merely for small estates. In many cases small estates will not have furniture and plenishings of anything like £5,000 it will be more like £500. But we may be dealing with quite large


estates, and I would have thought that £10,000 was on the low side.
We have to anticipate increases in values. From bitter experience we have come to realise that we do not get Succession (Scotland) Bills very often. We have waited a very long time for this one, and we may have to wait a very long time for the next. By that time the figure of £10,000 may be very much out of date, if property values continue to increase as they have done recently.
In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Lady will reconsider the question and will arrive at a figure which is more in keeping with the £5,000 for furniture and plenishings. The value of furniture and plenishings is not on all fours with the value of a house, because plenishings include all kinds of things, such as linen, china, glass, books and pictures, which may be extremely valuable. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to reconsider the matter. She will obviously not be able to do so now, but I hope that this will be possible before the Bill eventually passes through the other place.

Sir James Duncan: I was not in the Standing Committee on the Bill, and I did not realise that this point would be raised until I came in a short while ago and listened to the debate. It occurs to me that if my hon. Friend is going to reconsider the question of a limit of £10,000 she might also consider the method of arriving at the figure. One can always employ a certificated auctioneer to certify the value of plenishings and furniture, but there are different valuations in respect of house property. The value of the probate may be quite different from the value of the insurance.
We ought to insert a provision specifying who should carry out the valuation. It could be the district valuer, or the Inland Revenue authorities. Some words should be inserted, because in marginal cases we do not want arguments to arise between two valuers on the question whether a house is of greater or lesser value than £10,000. If my hon. Friend is going to reconsider the question of the figure she should also consider the method of arriving at the valuation.

Mr. Small: I wonder whether it would be possible to work on a percentage basis, beginning with the valuation of the moveable property. Having established the factual value of the moveable property—assessed by any mechanism we think fit—could we not use that figure as the basis for arriving at the global valuation? If we can be satisfied about the value of the moveable property we ought to be able to work on a percentage basis and arrive at an equitable value for the whole estate.

Mr. Hendry: I fully appreciate the difficulties which my noble Friend has met in framing the Clause. She did me the honour of discussing them with me at an early stage. I feel a little difficulty on this, because I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that there are two matters here which are becoming rather confused. I can, speaking from my own experience, imagine many houses of historical importance which are not worth anything like £10,000 but to which the Clause might properly apply. On the other hand, the question of an upper limit is a different question altogether.
I ask my noble Friend to reconsider this whole question with a view to tabling an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Ross: I was hoping that we should get a reply from the Minister?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I thought that had said, on the question of the £10,000 limit, that I recognised that there were difficulties in fixing the right sum. At this stage in our proceedings what I suggest is that I will not persist in the Amendment in page 6, line 1, because I will in fact undertake to consider what the sum should be. Therefore, the thing to do would be to leave paragraph (c) as it is now, unless the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would like to move his Amendment in page 6, line 1, which would have the effect of inserting the words "having an interest", which I should be glad to accept.
However, I should have to resist the hon. Member's Amendment in page 6, line 3, to leave out "of a historical nature", because I would not like to send the Clause forward in that way.


If this were done, we would leave paragraph (c) as it now stands, except that we would have substituted for "interested" the words "having an interest". In the meantime, I will consider the question of the size of the financial limit.

Mr. Speaker: To get this right, I have to ask the noble Lady if she wishes to withdraw the Government Amendment in page 6, line 1.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out "interested" and to insert "having an interest".
I have no desire to move the Amendment in my name in page 6, line 3, which would leave out the words "of historical nature", even if you, Mr. Speaker, were prepared to select it.

Amendment agreed to.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out from "owner" to "value" in line 12 and to insert:
a sum equal to the".
Perhaps it be convenient to the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in line 16, leave out from "tenant" to "the" in line 17 and insert:
a sum equal to".
And in line 26, leave out from beginning to "arbitration" in line 27 and insert:
(5) Where any question arises as to the value of any furniture or plenishings or of any interest in a dwelling house for the purposes of any provision of this section, the question shall be determined by.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if that meets the wishes of the House.

Lady Tweedsmuir: An Amendment to the Clause moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) introduced a money limit into the Clause. This is the limit of £5,000 on the surviving spouse's entitlement to furniture and plenishings and there would have been, if the Government Amendments had been accepted, a limit of £10,000 on the surviving spouse's claim to a dwelling house. The valuation of the furniture and plenishings can be disputed. It is, therefore, necessary to make provision for arbitration.
There is already provision for arbitration in respect of the intestate's interest in the house in cases where the spouse is to take the value of that interest instead of the interest itself. We thought that it would be convenient to collect the arbitration provisions in one place, and this is done by these Amendments. They have the effect of bringing all the arbitration provisions together in subsection (5).

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan: These seem to be drafting Amendments bringing all the references to arbitration into one reference in a new subsection. They are therefore agreeable to the House.
Now that the noble Lady is taking back the question of the upper limit of £10,000 and is to look at the whole matter again, I suggest that she looks at the drafting of subsections (4) and (5), including tie drafting that we are now considering. The drafting is clumsy. The fact that the Amendment referring to an upper limit of £10,000 has been withdrawn will make the Clause rather less clumsy than it otherwise would have been. The whole thing would benefit from a searching examination of the drafting. Perhaps the noble Lady will say that this will be done when she is considering the other points which she has already committed herself to consider before the Bill goes to another place.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As I know that the Parliamentary draftsmen simply love looking at drafting, it will be my great pleasure to have a look at it with them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 16, leave out from tenant "to" the "in Line 17 and insert" a sum equal to".—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, after "subject", to insert "in either case".
This is a drafting Amendment. It does not in any way alter the meaning of the Clause. This part of the Clause says that the surviving spouse of an intestate shall in certain circumstances be entitled to receive the value of the intestate's interest in a dwelling-house, subject to any heritable debt that may be secured over that interest. The intestate's interest in


the dwelling-house may be that of an owner or that of a tenant. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that in either case the spouse is to receive the value of that interest, subject to any heritable debt that is secured over it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker: I take it that the noble Lady does not wish to move the Government Amendment in page 6, line 25, at end insert:
or the sum of £10,000, whichever is the less".

Lady Tweedsmuir: Lady Tweedsmuir: No, Sir.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 26, leave out from begining to "arbitration" in line 27 and insert:
(5) Where any question arises as to the value of any furniture of plenishings or of any interest in a dwelling house for the purposes of any provision of this section, the question shall be determined by.—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Clause 9.—(LEGAL RIGHT OF SURVIVING SPOUSE TO PROVISION ON INTESTACY.)

Mr. Dempsey: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, after "wife" to insert:
who is the first husband or wife of the intestate".
My object in moving the Amendment is to seek clarification of an implication. I want to make it clear at the outset that I agree wholeheartedly with the terms of the Clause in relation to the amount of entitlement of a surviving spouse. A decision of this nature is unobjectionable. After all, a surviving female spouse is certainly the legitimate wife of the husband who has died intestate. No doubt any estate which she might inherit will benefit the family, either directly or indirectly. Moreover, I am sure that, if the surviving wife in due course were to die intestate, the family would still be protected and would benefit from the remainder of the estate which might be left at her death.
What happens when the surviving spouse is a second wife? In such a case, what protection is there in the Clause for the children of her first marriage, the children of her deceased husband? I am raising this point because it is a thorny one with many members of the legal profession. It is a well-known fact that we have some very regrettable cases whereby, under circumstances of this nature—there have

been some in my own constituency—it is found that the surviving wife, being the second wife, has died intestate and the remainder of the estate has gone to a nephew. The family of her late husband, who first passed on the estate, is completely unprotected. I understand that the sums mentioned in the Clause are of a nature as to convey a very definite impression that the majority of cases with which members of the legal profession in my constituency are concerned cover instances of this kind.
We are dealing here with a number of individuals who would come within the ceiling limits of £2,500 and £5,000. It is because I have this in mind that I wish to raise this very pertinent point. It has come to my attention that, in one case, the surviving spouse eventually died and left a will which was challenged. In the courts it was decided that relatives of the surviving spouse who had passed away were entitled to the estate and not the children of the husband who created and passed on the estate to the surviving spouse. This raises some points which should be clarified.
I want to be brief, otherwise I could quote a number of cases where the experience is similar to the one that I have mentioned. It would seem to me that in this case—and I hope that the Solicitor-General will give us his view of the law in Scotland—if this Clause means that there is little protection for the children of the deceased's father because their step-mother is in a position to leave the estate to her relatives to the exclusion of the husband's family, then, obviously there is some need for further thought on this subject.
I was hoping that this matter might have been raised and discussed this afternoon, because I feel it is something worthy of deliberation. I did not raise this matter just because I scrutinised some of the speeches, had a look at the Bill and then the Notice Paper. I have had consultations with a very eminent member of the legal profession and he advises me that this could be almost evil in content if it is allowed to escape the notice of the House.
I would like to ask the Under-Secretary, or particularly the Solicitor-General, because I think that a question


of law arises out of the nature of my Amendment, if, in the event of the surviving spouse herself dying, and leaving the remainder of her former husband's estate intestate, he is satisfied that the remainder of the estate would go to her relatives to the exclusion of her late husband's family. This is a point that should be clarified. I would certainly welcome some legal advice on the matter.
I am not a lawyer, but I have met problems of this nature in the course of my public life and I feel that this is sufficiently important for an Amendment to be placed on the Notice Paper to ascertain from the Solicitor-General what protection there is under this Clause for the family of the deceased husband should the stepmother die intestate and leave the estate.
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the family of that husband will be protected and provided for, or does he believe, being a Scottish lawyer, that the step-mother's relatives could claim the estate? If that is so, I think that the Minister should have further thoughts on this principle, because it is obviously fraught with dangerous trends if such a state of affairs exists.
My advice legally is that it does exist and there is nothing in the Bill to eliminate such an anomaly. I hope as a result of my remarks that we shall have some words of wisdom from the Solicitor-General on the Scottish law relating to this problem.

Miss Harvie Anderson: As the Minister knows, I have also had this question raised with me. I think that there is substance in the inquiries which we are now seeking to make. What the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has said applies equally in the case where the wife dies leaving the estate to her husband—and the sequence of events is the same as if the husband dies.
If I understand it correctly, the two difficulties which my noble Friend is likely to present is, in the first instance, the question of tracing the money through the second intestacy. I can see that there is substance in this difficulty, but it would seem to me that this could be got over by there being some financial figure

attached to the second intestacy which would match the figure originally left. It might be that, if provision could be made, it would have to be made in relation to the first intestacy, otherwise one would not be able to identify the sum left in the first instance which subsequently becomes a partial sum of the second figure.
If it were accepted that it was desirable to make provision for the family likely to be left out in the circumstances described, I would have thought that a safeguard would be to identify the figure first left and take that figure out of any subsequent figure which would be left by the second intestacy.
The second and most important thing is the principle of what we seek to do in this Bill. The more I think about it, the more I believe that if we seek, as I think we do, to make a will which a testator would himself or herself have made, we should seek to make in these instances provision for the first family as well as for the second family. I do not think that there can be many instances where, by deliberate intent, the first family, who, after all, would under this Bill have a right to an interest in the first estate, would through intestacy have that right removed, and yet it seems to me that it is removed by the Bill.
I should like my noble Friend to look at the plight of those who appear to me to be left cut of the Bill. I hope that if it is not possible or in order for us to carry this to a conclusion today, consideration may be given to a suitable alteration in another place and that my noble Friend will not reject this outright without consideration along the lines which have been presented.

7.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) suspected, it is the case that it the £2,500, once inherited by the second spouse, is regarded as her estate without any strings or qualifications attached. The law does not look at the source from which that estate came. Accordingly, upon her death intestate, the £2,500—which might have started life with her husband—would under the Fill go to her relatives in the state we discussed earlier.
We are really back in the same region which obtained earlier today, of determining between various possible hard cases and the desirability of avoiding the creation of new ones in an attempt to legislate to avoid other hard cases. There might, for example, be the case of a wealthy husband who had married twice and who had left, say, £30,000 to £40,000. Under the proposed Amendment, as I understand it, the second wife, the step-mother, would get no £2,500, even though she might be an old lady much in need of support. The children, her step-children—the children of the husband by the first wife—would obtain the appropriate proportion, subject to Estate Duty and so on. This example concerns a substantial sum and it is at one end of the scale. It is possible, however, to visualise hard cases at the other end of the scale.
I entirely agree that the guiding principle is that the law should try to put itself into the mind of the deceased, in this case the husband who died leaving the second wife, and see—using a fairly broad axe, so to speak—what he would have done in the average case, realising that there must be at either extreme cases which might not, on the face of it, be entirely fair.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely, considering the first case instanced by the Solicitor-General, we cannot base this on the lines he suggests because the Under-Secretary said earlier, in relation to Clause 2, that what we must not do in the Bill is to change from the principle of blood relationship to a family relationship—yet this is precisely how Clause 9 now works. I am seeking to keep the principle of the blood relationship through this Clause just as the Under-Secretary instanced the position in relation to Clause 2.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has made a sound point, I am happy to say, for it illustrates that it is possible to get a perfectly straightforward conflict between the two principles, each of them sound. The problem is to resolve which principle should prevail in that case. This is really a matter of judgment.

Mr. Dempsey: Is this really a matter of judgment? This is a question of real

principle. Should the family of the deceased husband share in the estate or should the second surviving spouse collar the whole of the estate? I mentioned the distinct case of a man who died and whose three children were left completely unprotected. In that case the surviving spouse received the estate and, upon her dying intestate, the remainder of the estate went to her nephew. Is it not fair and just that something should be done to provide for the family of the deceased husband—who created the estate in the first place?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member has postulated one of the hard cases which we recognise exist.

Mr. Dempsey: I am assured that this is not exceptional but that cases of this type are quite general, certainly in the west of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that we are not in Committee.

The Solicitor-General: The overriding question of principle is that the law should endeavour to put itself into the mind of the testator and make the will which he would have been likely to make. In these circumstances one cannot legislate for every size of estate. The sum of £2,500 is not, by and large—yielding, say, 3 per cent., an income of about £70, £80 or £90 a year—a large sum for a testator to have contemplated leaving to his second wife, especially if, as one may well envisage, the first family has become married and has a much better earning capacity than the second spouse who is left. On balance, looking to the varied circumstances and the need to legislate broadly in a matter of this sort, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has put his finger on a difficult and important point. In principle it is right that the rights given under the Clause should apply even where the wife is not the first wife. We are, by the Clause, trying to protect the spouse of the deceased, who may be a husband whose wife has died, although normally in these matters we are thinking of cases where the wife has survived the husband.
It is difficult to say that just because the surviving wife is the second wife she should not be entitled to the rights under the Clause. There may be all sorts of circumstances in which it would be grossly unfair if that attitude were taken. Thus, in the majority of cases, Clause 9 appears better as it stands than it would if my hon. Friend's Amendment were made.
However, there is a serious point here and I hope that the Government will consider this matter again before the Bill reaches its final stages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie Pointed out, there may be cases in which the children of the intestate will get nothing at all because the Clause will completely swallow up the estate. This applies only in the case of a small estate because if more than £2,500 is involved and there are surviving children they have a certain right to share in the balance.
Where the estate is less than £2,500 the children may get nothing. The case may be even worse, because if the surviving wife in turn dies intestate the money does not go to the husband's family at all. That takes us back to the first Amendment we discussed this afternoon—that in page 2, line 21. The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) nods her head vigorously in agreement; I hope that it means that she voted for that first Amendment, though I rather think that she did not. In the circumstances mentioned, that Amendment would have given some right to the husband's children—the step-children of the wife who subsequently died intestate. I hope that the hon. Member for Renfrew, East appreciates that had that earlier Amendment been accepted some kind of right would have been given to step-children.
I confess that it is an argument that had not occurred to me until my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie moved his Amendment, but it demonstrates another of the unfairnesses that may arise from excluding stepchildren, because the step-parent may very well be leaving money which he or she received from the predeceasing spouse who is the father or the mother of the step-children. The money may have gone from the father to the wife;

the wife, in turn, leaves the money, but the father's children get nothing of it because they, are the step-children of that deceased wife.
It is a very unfair situation. In many instances, the money might well go to the wife's parents, brothers, sisters, nephews, grandparents, or brothers of grandparents—an absurd position. It must be particularly galling to the stepchildren to think that the money which in the first instance originated in their natural parent will not come to them.
It would probably cause rather more injustice to accept this Amendment than to leave the Clause as it is, but, frankly, had this mutter been raised in Committee, and had it been put there with the same persuasiveness with which my hon. Friend has spoken this evening, I am sure that we would have sought to have put down an Amendment at this stage to cover the kind of circumstances he has outlined, in a way that would be reasonably just to all the interests involved. We have not been able to do that. My feeling is that it would be wrong to incorporate this Amendment, but I hope that we may have an assurance that the Government will look into this matter most carefully before the Bill takes its final shape because there is the certainty—my hon. Friend has said that he has had an actual case brought to his notice—that, as tie Bill is drafted, there can be considerable injustice to step-children.

Mr. Willis: Neither the noble Lady nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland has bothered to reply to the simple question whether or not they will look at this matter again agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) has said, to accept this Amendment as it is might weaken the protection we are seeking to give to the surviving spouse, but no one who has had experience of public life in centres of population can be unaware of this problem.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland gave us a good legal exposition of the present position, and told us what the duty of the law is. He said that we have to try to get into the mind of the intestate, and that is rather difficult to do. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say whether the matter had been looked at with a view to trying


to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). It is a perfectly legitimate point, and one that causes a great deal of criticism and concern.
Even if the Government are unable to accept the Amendment, they might at least apply their minds to finding some way round the difficulty. That is the job of the lawyers—we are grateful to them for expounding the law, but we also expect them to apply their minds in this way. We should be told that the Government, the lawyers and the Parliamentary draftsmen will consider the matter to see whether my hon. Friend's point can be met.

7.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: While I am sympathetic to the suggestion that further consideration should be given to this subject I may, perhaps, be forgiven for taking the somewhat unusual course in the circumstances of revealing that this point came before the notice of the Government from other sources in advance of this Amendment being put down, and that we have considered the matter closely over a period of some two and a half weeks. We would not be likely to arrive at any different conclusion in view of the time and consideration already given to the matter.
The view is that it would be impossible so to frame this provision as to legislate for the hard cases and the other types of case that could arise. We should be in the same region as though, in earlier parts of the Bill, we had tried to legislate for the son who might be a wastrel but was being preferred to the sister who had looked after the deceased with loving care over many years. In every aspect of the legislation on intestacy, examples of hard cases can inevitably be obtained. As I say, we have looked at this question with care and sympathy over the last two and a half weeks, and I cannot give an undertaking to look further at it.

Mr. Willis: May I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has considered the point that this would have been an additional argument for the acceptance of the first Amendment and that, had the first Amendment been

accepted, there might have been some way to meet the hardship in question?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not accept the analogy between the two cases, I am afraid.

Mr. Ross: There is a definite analogy between the two cases, because they overlap. Had we dealt with the first case—the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) shakes her head—

Miss Harvie Anderson: In the first Amendment I was at least trying to keep to the principle of there being a blood relationship.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Lady against the step-children being considered?

Mr. Ross: But the hon. Lady will appreciate now that there is no blood relationship, because the people now affected and whom she seeks to bring in are not related to the intestate—

Miss Harvie Anderson: There is the money.

Mr. Willis: The Tory attitude—measuring blood relationship in terms of money.

Mr. Ross: We shall come to that, too. We are now dealing with people who could, at least in part, have been dealt with under the first Amendment, though I am the first to suggest that we would not have dealt with it entirely satisfactorily. But if we are concerned about their position we should have been concerned right from Clause I and should not have waited until we reached this Clause.
I shall not go over the whole ground again, but surely the position is that this is something to which we should have given a great deal more attention in Committee. It is something which we are denied by the very facts of the progress of the Bill from returning to in the House, but it is terribly wrong for the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whom we appreciate is not experienced in the House and its ways, to say, "We have given this matter two-and-a-half weeks' consideration and I cannot say that we shall give it any more". The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the Bill will go to another place. I hope that if this matter is


raised there it will have the consideration which it merits and that there will be reconsideration of everything done and requested there as well as here.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong to close his mind to the possibility of even a change of heart by the Government. After we have heard in the debate speeches from both sides of the House calling attention to a problem, which admittedly the Government heard about two-and-a-half weeks ago, it is a dreadful thing for the Government to say, "Sorry, nothing can be done". I hope that the Government will consider the problem in a more open-minded spirit than that. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said to me earlier that it is an impossible business to try and make up somebody else's will. Here we are trying to make up the wills of perhaps millions of people, and all in the same words, but when an obvious gap has been drawn to the attention of the Government, I hope that they will give more than two-and-a-half weeks' consideration to it.

Mr. Dempsey: In view of the statement made by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out from the beginning to the first "he" in line 26 and to insert:
any property which the surviving spouse would have been entitled to receive under the last foregoing section if the property had been included in the intestate estate and if subsection (4) of that section had not passed)".
The Amendment is intended to put right a difficulty in the drafting of the proviso to Clause 9(1). The fact is that the words which appear in brackets in the second and third lines of the proviso are self-contradictory. They are:
(other than a legacy of anything to which paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (I) of the last foregoing section applies)
But these paragraphs apply to a house or furniture and plenishings which have fallen into intestacy. The contradiction is that if a property is the subject of a legacy it has not fallen into intestacy. The Amendment removes the difficulty by referring to property which the surviving spouse would have received under Clause

8 if it had formed part of a deceased's intestate estate.

Mr.Millan: I am glad that the Government are making the change. I think that they had their attention drawn to this matter by a member of the Faculty of Law at Glasgow University who also wrote to me about it. He seems to have been absolutely right on this. I admired the logic with which he demolished the present wording in the letter which he wrote to me, to which I think he also drew the attention of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I am glad to see that in one way or another we are managing to correct the faults of the Parliamentary draftsmen. I hope that there are not many more which we ought to discover before we come to the end of our proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(REPRESENTATION IN, AND DIVISION OF, LEGITIM.)

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to lave out subsection (3).
I am moving the Amendment because I should like to have just a little clarification about the question of collation of advances in cases of legitim, which is mentioned in this subsection. This is rather complicated and I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House with it.
I ought to explain that legitim is the right of children to receive certain legal rights out of the moveable estate of an intestate person. There is a provision in the law at present that where one of the, children has had an advance from the deceased person during the lifetime of the latter, that advance, in certain circumstances, will be taken into account in calculating the right of that child to legitim after the parent is dead.
In other words, the child in those circumstances will get rather less out of the legitim fund than he would have done if the advance had not been given. This is a perfectly acceptable principle, but before this process of collation of advances can go into operation there has to be more than one surviving child, because the whole principle of collation is intended to give justice between the different surviving children.
In Committee, I raised the question of what would happen where there was only one surviving child who had had an advance during the lifetime of a deceased parent. Did the principle of collation also apply? In this case, of course, the principle would not be important from the point of view of regulating the rights of the surviving children, because there is only one surviving child, but the principle of taking, account of the advance is important taking the point of view of the rights of the surviving spouse because the more goes to the children, in one way or another, the less there is for the surviving spouse.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland has written to me about this since the Committee stage. I am very glad to have his letter, but I am not satisfied that the whole position has been taken care of in the present law. I am moving the Amendment so that the Government can have a look at this again before the Bill reaches its final stage. What can happen in present circumstances is that the parent may give to the child an advance during his lifetime which he would intend to replace legitim, or at least replace part of the legitim, which would otherwise be paid to that child on the death of a parent. Yet, because there is no other surviving child, that advance does not fall to be collated and is paid out of the widow's share of the estate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's letter to me did not completely meet the point which I made in Committee, because he left out of account the fact that not only is legitim paid out of intestate estate but it is also a legal right which can be placed against the provisions of a will. Therefore, a parent might very well give his surviving child something which he would take to be in discharge of legitim, although it may not be described as that, and he might then leave a will leaving the whole of the rest of the estate to the surviving widow, but the child could still claim legitim against the will. In that kind of circumstance this would, as far as I can see, come straight out of what had been left to the widow in terms of the will. This is the point which the

Solicitor-General did not answer either in Committee or in his letter to me.
8.0 p.m.
The point arises because legitim is something which can be settled against a will as well as applying to an intestacy, and in certain circumstances, therefore, a child who has already had, from the parents' intention, all that he is entitled to out of his parents' estate can nevertheless, because of this anomaly that the collation of advances does not apply where there is only one child, insist on his right of legitim out of the testator's estate and frustrate the testator's wishes if he had left the whole of the estate to his widow.
There is an anomaly here. I do not want necessarily to press it at the moment, but I should like to think that the Government would give some consideration to it before the Bill reaches its final stages.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Amendment would leave out the subsection which applies the rules relating to collation of advances to cases in which legitim is being claimed under Clause 11 for issue of a pre-deceasing child.
The present rule is that if a child received an advance from his parent during the parent's lifetime and then subsequently claims legitim from his parent's estate, he may be required by any other person entitled to claim legitim from that estate to bring the amount of the advance into the legitim fund.
But under Clause 11 the issue of a pre-deceasing child may for the first time claim legitim, and that is why it is necessary to extend the rule for the collation of such claims, and subsection (3) does that. This is very clearly fair. Therefore, on the part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the deletion of the subsection, I submit that his suggestion should be rejected because the subsection serves a useful purpose.
As I understood the hon. Gentleman's further observations, they were related not so much to the content of his Amendment—that is, the desirability or otherwise of striking out subsection (3)—as to a matter which he suggested I had not adequately covered in a letter I had given him explanatory of certain


matters raised in Committee. On that matter I shall be happy to write further to him, but that does not relate to the question raised directly by the Amendment.

Mr. Millan: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 15.—(PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFER OF HERITAGE.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, after "property", to insert "(a)".
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss the three following Amendments at the same time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that will be for the convenience of the House.

Lady Tweedsmuir: This is a group of drafting Amendments intended to put right an awkwardness in the wording of Clause 15(2). The subsection empowers an executor to execute a short form of conveyance for the purpose of transferring heritable property when he is distributing the deceased's estate. There are three cases in which the short form of conveyance may be used; first, where the person to whom the property is to be transferred is taking it in satisfaction of a claim to legal rights; secondly, where such a person is taking the property in satisfaction for his share of the deceased's estate on intestacy; and, thirdly, where such a person is taking the property which is left to him by the deceased in his will.
As the subsection is worded, the second and third cases are run together, and this might cause difficulties of interpretation. The Amendment is intended to distinguish quite clearly the three cases in which the short form of conveyance may be used.
There is also the point that the second case is expressed as the case in which a person is to succeed to the estate, which might be wrongly taken to mean the estate as a whole, and to clear up this minor difficulty the words "succeed to" are proposed to be omitted and the words "share in" substituted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 43, after "or", insert "(b)".

In line 41, leave out "succeed to" and insert "share in".

In line 44, after "or", insert:
(c) to any person entitled to take the said property.—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Clause 16—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO LEASES.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, after "year" to insert:
or such longer period as may be fixed by agreement between the landlord and the executor or, failing agreement, by the sheriff on summary application by the executor".
This, also, is a drafting Amendment. It is intended to enable an executor to obtain an extension of the period during which he may dispose of the deceased's interest in a lease. Subsection (3) of the Clause makes provision under which a lease that is vested in an executor can in certain circumstances be terminated. Paragraph (b) gives the executor a period of one year in which to dispose of the lease according to law. If he has not done so by the end of the year, the landlord becomes entitled to give him notice for terminating the lease.
It may be, however, that the executor has been unable to dispose of the lease within the year by reason of circumstances which are outwith his control. For example, there may be a dispute as to whether a lease was or was not part of the deceased person's estate, and a question of this kind may have to be taken to court. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the executor, in circumstances such as these, the right to apply to the sheriff for an extension of time within which to dispose of the lease.
I said that this was a drafting Amendment. Strictly speaking, it gives an extension, but I believe that it is a fair one.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ENTAILS AND, SPECIAL DESTINATIONS.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 13, line 38, to leave out from "otherwise" to the first "the" in line 39.
The words proposed to be left out by the Amendment are a forward reference


to Clause 35(2). I ought to say that that is a subsection which forms part of the interpretation of the term "estate" for the purposes of the Bill. This is being redrafted by Government Amendments which are to be moved to Clause 35, and the forward reference is, therefore, not correct. In any event, we have decided that the forward reference is no longer required.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(ESTATE DUTY.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, to leave out from "who" to "intromits" in line 3.
This is a drafting Amendment. It does not have any effect on the meaning of the Clause.
Subsection (8) provides that
For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the expression ' executor' includes every person who as executor, next of kin or creditor or otherwise intromits with or enters on the possession or management of any part of the estate of the deceased.
The necessary meaning can be conveyed by saying simply that the expression "executor" includes every person who intromits with the estate. It is, in fact, unnecessary to say that this person may be acting
as executor, next of kin or creditor or otherwise
and the Amendment seeks to omit these words.

Mr. Millan: I suppose that the Amendment is simply a drafting Amendment in the sense that the remaining words can be regarded as quite comprehensive. On the other hand, we are giving a very wide definition of the term "executor" for this purpose, saying that it includes everyone who intromits with or enters upon the possession or management of any part of an estate. Presumably, this would cover everyone who receives a legacy and all the rest. Why is it necessary to have this very wide definition?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that, as subsection (8) makes clear in the opening words, it is only for the purposes of subsection (1) of this Clause that "executor" is being defined. This fairly wide

definition is not being introduced for the general legal purposes of Scots law.
The narrow purpose for which it is introduced, looking back to subsection (1), is to provide for accountability for all Estate Duty in respect of heritable property which may become leviable or payable. In other words, to use a colloquialism, anyone who meddles with the estate becomes liable for the Estate Duty, It is for that narrow purpose.

Mr. Millan: Strictly, it would mean that anyone who intromitted with or entered into possession of any part of an estate could be accountable for Estate Duty on the whole. Is that really the position? Subsection (1) does not say that a person will be responsible only for Estate Duty on that part of the estate which he deals with or receives. Do we really want everyone who intromits or enters into possession of any part of the estate to be responsible for the whole of the duty?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall consider the full implications of the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21.—(EVIDENCE AS TO HOLO GRAPH WILLS IN COMMISSARY PROCEEDINGS.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out from "evidence" to "that" in line 22.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment, if it be convenient for the House, could be discussed the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in page 15, line 23, to leave out "proper".

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
We now move to a less abstruse but still very important question. There has been some advice given today by hon. Members who have now fled the scene that it would save a lot of trouble in these matters if people would only make a will. It is one of the easiest things in the world to make a valid will in Scotland all the person has to do is to write it out in his own handwriting and sign it.
The Government seem determined to make things much more difficult, and


so we have in Clause 21 the importation of the qualification that the court must be satisfied by evidence consisting at least of an affidavit by each of two persons. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) took exception to this and, although it was pointed out to him, with some validity, I think, that this is pretty well the rule and practice at present, my hon. Friend still felt strongly enough to put this Amendment down.
The Amendment in my name which we are discussing at the same time is for the purpose of avoiding doubt and difficulty. It is far better in legislation, wherever possible, to avoid epithets and qualifications, particularly those which will lead to difficulty and which add little or nothing to the sense of the law or, indeed, obscure it.
8.15 p.m.
Who will define what "proper" handwriting is? I am sure that the Clerk at the Table could inform the House about my handwriting. I have four or five different styles of handwriting depending on the time of day, the type of pen I use, or whether or not it is one of the rare Thursday evenings when I hope to catch the 11.40 train and I want to get Questions in before I leave. I do not know whether any one of these could be described as my proper handwriting.

Mr. Willis: None of them is handwriting.

Mr. Ross: I hear what my hon. Friend says. If he means that none of them is legible, that is a view which I must resist. If he refers to my relaxed style of handwriting, which is a rather more ornate Italian script, he is probably right in saying that it is not handwriting, for it is really a form of art. But is it "proper"?
Handwriting may depend upon the state of health of a person. What of the man who has a stroke, who is not able to write with his right hand and who learns to write with his left? He still knows what he is doing and it is still his handwriting. But is it his "proper" handwriting? Does the word add anything at all? Will it confuse a court or confuse witnesses who wish to say. "Yes, this is in the handwriting of the testator"? I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about it.
On this matter, they have had the advice of the Solicitor-General, because, by the time we got to Clause 21, he had arrived on the scene. We see the trouble which he has caused. Now that he has had time to settle down, he will, I am sure, after two and a half weeks' mature consideration, agree that it is time he took this word out.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will be happy to know that I have great pleasure in saying that we accept his Amendment to leave out the word "proper".
The first Amendment, on the other hand, is one of considerable substance. Clause 21 provides that confirmation shall not be granted on a holograph will unless the court is satisfied by evidence consisting at least of an affidavit by each of two persons that the will, including the signature, in the handwriting of the testator. If the words
consisting a. least of an affidavit by each of two persons
were deleted, the court, in order to be satisfied that the writing and signature were the handwriting of the testator, would have no requirement as to the nature of the evidence it was necessary to have for this purpose.
I feel, therefore, that the Amendment cannot be accepted. If it were accepted, some courts might continue their present practice of accepting as holograph a will which is produced on an unopposed application for confirmation if the will itself contains a statement to the effect that it is in the handwriting of the testator. The purpose of Clause 21 is to ensure that this practice does not continue.
I suggest therefore, that we should leave the Clause as it stands in one respect, but that it will be greatly improved, particularly for lay people like myself who hope in later years to read what, I trust, will be an Act, by the fact that the disposition will be in the handwriting of the testator. I could not agree more with what the hon. Member said about handwriting. Mine gets worse and worse as the years go on.

Miss Herbison: The noble Lady has just said that she hopes to be able to


read this Act in later years. Does that mean that we shall have an election before the Bill can go to another place?

Lady Tweedsmuir: No. But I always keep my fingers crossed for any piece of legislation for which I am responsible and about which I care.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 23, leave out "proper".—[Mr. Ross.]

Clause 22.—(COURT OF SESSION MAY REGULATE PROCEDURE IN COMMISSARY PROCEEDINGS.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 15, line 35, to leave out "and without" and insert:
(2) Without.
This is a drafting Amendment, intended to meet a criticism which was made in Committee. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out that the whole of subsection (1) was contained in a single long and breathless sentence. I agreed that that was so and that, if possible, we should try to break it up. That is what the Amendment does.

Mr. Ross: I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted yet another of my suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(ADOPTED PERSON TO BE TREATED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCCES SION ETC. AS CHILD OF ADOPTER.)

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 17, line 5, to leave out subsection (4).
This Clause deals with the rights of adopted persons, and its purpose is to provide that an adopted child shall have the same rights in the estate of the parents as a natural child. We all welcome the Government's intention.
As the Bill is drafted, any will which is drawn up after the Bill becomes an Act will include an adopted child as a natural child even if the adoption took place after the date of the will. In other words, once an adoption order has been made, and if the parent has previously made a will, any reference in it to his children will include the adopted child. Therefore, the provisions of the will will be altered to some extent even if the

adoption was made some time before. That is the general principle, and we accept it because an adopting person would not be asked to make a new will simply because he adopted a child. This seems very reasonable.
However, subsection (4) explicitly excludes any will executed before the commencement of the Bill's operation. Therefore, there may arise certain anomalies, because even if the child had been adopted before the will was made, and provided the will was made before the passing of the Bill, the adopted child will not come in. This seems anomalous. In one case, provided the will was made after the Bill had come into operation, even if the adoption takes place after the will was made, the adopted child will come in, but in another case, simply because the will was made before the passing of the Bill, it will not include the adopted child even if adoption took place before the will was made. The Amendment has been tabled to avoid this anomalous position.
The Amendment, so far as it relates to deeds executed before the Bill comes into operation, will have the effect of placing the adopted child in exactly the same position as a natural child regardless of the date of the will. Any reference in a will to the children of the person making the will will be taken to include an adopted child. When this point was raised in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State turned down the Amendment because there might be cases in which the person concerned had died before the commencement of the Act, although the relevant provisions of the will had not yet taken effect because there were special dispositions of the property from one person to another, some of which might take place after the commencement of the Act. There may be special cases of that kind and we do not wish to create special difficulties in respect of them. But they are exceptions. If the Amendment were accepted, we should be dealing in most cases with people who had made wills before the commencement of the Act and who are alive at the date of commencement because under subsection (2) deeds are taken as having been executed on the date of the death of the person concerned. Therefore, in


the vast majority of cases the difficulty which the noble Lady mentioned in Committee will not arise.
I ask the Government to look at this matter again. I accept that if the Amendment were accepted as it stands we would, perhaps, create more difficulties than might arise under the Bill as it is drafted. But it should be possible for the Government to deal with the exceptional cases described in Committee and yet allow in the generality of cases for the kind of results about which I have been arguing. I therefore hope that the Government will not turn the Amendment down out of hand, but will consider it and see whether the Clause can be so drafted that all cases are taken into account so that we do not have this anomaly which arises from whether or not the will was drawn up before the Bill became operative.

8.30 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has recognised that if this Amendment were accepted as it stands it might have some unfortunate results because subsection (4) provides that Clause 23 is not to
affect any deed executed, or the devolution of any property on, or in consequence of, the death of a person who dies, before the commencement of this Act.
The Amendment would leave out the subsection and it would have two main effects. The first effect would be that a deed would be interpreted as if "children" included adopted children, even if the deed had been executed before the Act. In other words, such deeds would be interpreted in a way which could not be foreseen by the person who executed the deed. That would be retrospective legislation.
The second effect would be that the estates of persons already dead might have to be reopened if any question arose of succession by or through the adopted person. The trouble is that such a question could arise at any time when the estate was wound up, and this would also be retrospective legislation. For these two reasons, I could not possibly accept the Amendment as it stands.
The hon. Member gave various examples and asked if it would be possible to give consideration to trying to cover the difficulties which he mentioned. This has been gone into since

the Committee stage, but I think it is a case of having to tell the hon. Member again that the more we go into this Bill the mare it raises the problem of individual hard cases and it is impossible to cover them. Therefore, I could not possibly give him that undertaking.

Mr. Millan: The Clause as drawn is already retrospective. Is it not the case that where after the commencement of the Act, a person has drawn up a will and subsequently adopted another child his will will be taken to refer to the adopted child? At the date when he made the will he may have had no intention of adapting a child. Surely that is retrospective in just the same way as if this Amendment were accepted. That cannot be an objection to it.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I think that I made it quite clear that the deed would be  as if "children" included adopted children even if the deed had been before the Act.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 25.—(AMENDMENT OF LAW AS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS ARISING ON DIVORCE.)

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 18, line 6, to leave out from "ground" to has "in line 8.
We are now dealing with a Clause which concerns property rights arising on divorce. As I understand the present legal position, in normal circumstances divorce for the purpose of the disposition of properly rights is taken as if the unsuccessful defendant in the action had died giving the pursuer the same legal rights as would have arisen on his death, but there is an exception at present. That exception is in the case of a divorce on the ground of incurable insanity. This is covered by the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938.
What we are doing under this Clause is to remove the present legal position and to replace it by a financial settlement to be made at the discretion of the court. When a similar Amendment to the one I am moving was moved in Committee the noble Lady the Under-Secretary said that it was not necessary to have this Amendment because in the case of incurable insanity the present position before the


Bill was that there was a financial settlement at the discretion of the court. This was provided for under the first Sections of the 1938 Divorce (Scotland) Act.
When I looked up that Act I found, although perhaps I may have misinterpreted it, that the Act gives financial settlements of a rather different kind from those to be given under Clause 26 of this Bill. Under the Clause we are considering financial settlements in favour of the successful pursuer as against the defender.
The exact reverse is true, under the 1938 Act, in cases where the grounds for divorce have been incurable insanity; and, divorce being granted in those circumstances, there are certain rights to the insane defender to get rights of property as against the pursuer. This is exactly the opposite position, Therefore, so far as I can see the position, if we retain Clauses 25 and 26 as we have them in the Bill at present, then, in the case of a divorce granted on the ground of incurable insanity, the pursuer will have absolutely no rights at all to a financial settlement as against the defender.
There may be cases in which it would not be right that the pursuer, in circumstances of this kind, a divorce on those grounds, should have rights against the defender, but, on the other hand, there may be cases in which there is no reason at all why he should not have property rights as against the defender. There may be, for example, a very rich man who becomes incurably insane. Are we to argue that in those circumstances, if his wife successfully seeks divorce?
It would be theoretically possible, though unlikely, that a very wealthy man should have a property settlement from his wife, but are we to argue that it would not be right at all that the wife should be able to get any financial settlement from the husband? I really cannot see that that would be a reasonable kind of situation, and yet, unless I am really misinterpreting it, that is what the position seems to be, and the hon. Lady herself said this in Committee, and this is the position as at present.
If this Amendment were accepted, though there might have to be some consequential repeal of part of the 1938 Act, what would happen in the case of a

divorce on the ground of incurable insanity would be that the same provisions would apply as in a case of divorce on any other ground than this; in other words, the pursuer would be able to obtain a property settlement from the defender at the discretion of the court; and in those cases, if the court were to feel that the circumstances were rather unusual—incurable insanity does not, for example, raise a presumption of a marital offence, which is the kind of presumption which is at the root of our divorce laws—then, presumably, the court could take that into account and make a settlement under Clause 26.
However, whatever a court may do it does seem to me that there ought to be some right to the pursuer in cases of this sort. If one wishes to retain the right of the defender because this a case where the defender can very well be prejudiced, then one can retain the provisions of the 1938 Act, so that one could meet the unusual circumstance, in a divorce action of this kind, that the defender could get a settlement from the pursuer, instead of the more usual circumstance in which the pursuer gets a settlement from the defender.
There does seem to me to be an anomaly here, and I should like this matter cleared up, and if the position is as I take it to be, from reading the 1938 Act and from reading what the noble Lady said in Committee, I think that there is a very strong case for making an Amendment of the kind I am now moving.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is perfectly correct in his interpretation—and, as he said himself, I did make it clear in Committee—about the particular provisions of the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938. What his Amendment seeks to do is to apply the provisions of Clause 26(1,a) to divorces on the ground of insanity, and it would have the effect that the court would have power to order a financial provision for the pursuer from the defender's estate.
I agree that there is much merit in the suggestion of the hon. Member. Indeed, this is Recommendation 53 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, although the circumstances in which it might be used are fairly uncommon. In drafting the


Bill we considered this matter, but did not include such a provision, as I explained in Committee, because the Bill is concerned with the rights of succession. There are certain existing rights to claim financial provision on divorce, in particular, Section 2 of the 1938 Act. That deals with divorce on insanity.
In drawing up the Bill we were trying to examine the question of legal rights based on succession rights, and, therefore, it seemed to us that this was not the right kind of Bill in which to include such a provision regarding marriage and divorce because it has no connection with succession. It would mean the creation of an entirely new claim for financial provision on divorce and for that reason we did not include it.

Mr. Ross: I have heard many inadequate and inept explanations of why the Government could not accept Amendments, but never have I heard one more inept or inadequate than that just made by the noble Lady. She admits the justice of the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). She agrees that the Royal Commission made a similar recommendation. But then she says that the Bill is related to succession and not to marriage and divorce and, therefore, the Government do not think it right to include such a provision. I draw the noble Lady's attention to the rubric of this Clause:

"Amendment of law as to property rights arising on divorce."

Surely noting is clearer than that.

The one subject we are currently dealing with is what happens when a marriage ends in divorce and the settlement there after. It may happen that, under Scottish law hitherto, divorce has been equated with death—in other words, they share the same principles of legal rights. There may be a certain logic in that. But the hon. Lady cannot get away from the fact that, in this Clause, we are dealing with marriage and divorce and the settlement thereafter. The is exactly the point raised in this Amendment.

Since the noble Lady has accepted the justice of our proposal, surely there is no reason why she should not accept it. She tempts me, even at this late hour, to go through a number of provisions of the Bill which have nothing to do with succession. I will give one example—the power of the minor to test. There are others. I hope that the hon. Lady thinks again about this. If she does not agree to do so, I think that we should take this matter to a Division.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided Ayes 167. Noes 121.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[8.44 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Costain, A. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Allason, James
Craddook, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Anderson, D. C.
Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hastings, Stephen


Barlow, Sir John
Curran, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Batsford, Brian
Currie, C. B. H.
Hendry, Forbes


Beamish Col. Sir Tufton
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bidgood, John C.
du Cann, Edward
Hocking, Philip N.


Biffen, John
Duncan, Sir James
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hopkins, Alan


Bishop, F. P.
Emmet, Hon, Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hughes-Young, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Bullard, Denys
Firday, Graeme
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jackson, John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David


Cary, Sir Robert
Freeth, Denzil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Channon, H. P. G.
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gardner, Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hon, Sir Keith


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Gower, Raymond
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Cole, Norman
Gresham Cooke, R.
Kirk, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Kitson, Timothy




Lancaster, Col. G. C.
percival, Ian
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Leather, Sir Edwin
Pitt, Dame Edith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Litchfield, capt. John
Pym, Francis
Turner, Colin


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Loveys, Walter H.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


McLaren, Martin
Roots, William
Wader, David


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Walker, Peter


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Russell, Ronald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


McMaster, Stanley R.
Sharples, Richard
Wall, Patrick 


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) 
Shaw, M. 



Maddan, Martin
Shepherd, William
Ward, Dame Irene


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Smith, Dud'ey (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, William


Mills, Stratton
Stodart, J. A.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wise, A. R.


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Summers, Sir Spencer
Woodnutt, Mark


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Talbot, John E.
Worsley, Marcus


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)



Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Temple, John M.
Mr. Rees and Mr. R. W. Elliott.




NOES


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Guy
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will


Bence, Cyril
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bradley, Tom
Howie, W. (Luton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Collick, Percy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silkin, John


Dalyett, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Darling, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Small, William


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dompsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.


Diamond, John
Lubbock, Eric
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
McInnes, James
Stones, William


Evans, Albert
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Symonds, J. B.


Foley, Maurice
Manuel, Archie
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J,
Warbey, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Wilis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Milne, Edward
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, Walter
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)



Hannan, William
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harper., Joseph
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and Mr. Grey.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
O'Malley, B. K.

Clause 26.—(ORDERS FOR FINANCIAL PRO VISION ON DIVORCE.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 18, line 25, to leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in line 31, to leave out "or paragraph (b)".

Mr. Ross: Clause 26 deals with orders for financial provision on divorce. It wipes out the equation of divorce with death in Scottish law and replaces it by the provision that
the pursuer may…apply to the Court…for the payment by the defender…of a capital sum or an annual or periodical allowance…


I do not take exception to that, but I take exception to paragraph (b) which says:
either party to the marriage may apply to the Court for an order varying the terms of any settlement made in contemplation of or during the marriage, so far as taking effect on or after the termination of the marriage.
This presupposes a legal settlement being freely entered into before marriage in contemplation of that marriage ending in divorce.
It is a little beyond me to understand why we are giving a new right to vary a settlement entered into in this way. It is as disturbing as the idea of the settlement having been made in the first place is offensive. In an interjection an hon. Member opposite talked about equating blood relationship with money, but it is evident that the bonds of matrimony have a literal meaning for some people. I could not allow the Clause to pass without making reference to this point. No doubt I shall receive the reply that this is simply realistic and prudent, but if it is all that realistic and prudent I do not see why the settlement should not remain. We should not give an additional right to vary it.
If there is to be no sanctity in relation to the vows of marriage I hope that hon. Members opposite will see to it that the long proclaimed principle of the sanctity of contract is upheld. It seems that marriages are made in much more mundane circumstances and with much more mercenary motives than are usually attributed to them in song and story. My hon. Friends may think that I am too much of a Presbyterian puritan, but I feel rather strongly about this. When, before going into a church to take vows of marriage—"till death us do part"—people openly and realistically enter into a settlement concerning what will happen when the marriage ends in divorce, in my opinion that settlement should not be open to variation.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am afraid that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment. I quite understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross): they are not merely Protestant or Presbyterian feelings. But although marriage settlements are not made very often, when they are made it is not with the express intention of their ending in divorce. The purpose

of this kind of marriage settlement is to make provision for what should happen when the marriage terminates, and that means when it terminates at death. The hon. Member concluded that settlements were made because people thought that their marriages might possibly end in divorce, but the real purpose of such settlements is to decide upon some arrangement as to what should happen to property on the termination of a marriage. Unfortunately, even the happiest of marriages are terminated by death.
That is why this paragraph is necessary. Its purpose is to empower the court, upon granting a divorce, to order a variation in the terms of the marriage settlement. By the changes in the law which we are making in this part of the Bill we are giving courts a discretion to make an award to the pursuer, from the defender's estate, in terms which it thinks fit, laving regard to all the circumstances of the case. The court will be responsible for making a financial settlement which is satisfactory to both parties.
The provisions in the marriage settlement dealing with what is to happen on the termination of the marriage must affect the issue, and a court might find itself unable to make satisfactory provisions because the property of the parties was tied up in the terms of the settlement. That is why, if the court is to do what it is asked to do here, it must have power to vary a settlement, and that is why I suggest we should retain this provision.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 27.—(ORDERS RELATING TO SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEALINGS.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 19, line 31, to leave out "three" and to insert "two".
The purpose of the Clause is to prevent a delender in a divorce action frustrating the financial provision which might be made under Clause 26 by disposing of the property before the date of the prop arty settlement. As the Clause is drafted at present, any such disposal occurring three years before the making of the application for a property settlement may be set aside. The purpose


of the Amendment is to reduce three years to two years.
This is a difficult point. We all accept the purpose of the Clause. There may be cases in which the property is disposed of by the defender to a bona fide purchaser. This seems to be covered—or it is covered in most cases, perhaps—by the special proviso at the end of the Clause that, where the purchaser has acquired the property in good faith and for value, he is protected. There may, however, be other cases in which the defender in the action has disposed of the property for less than the total value of the property, or has even given the property away, and the gift has been accepted in good faith by an innocent party. In those cases, the proviso about the acquisition being for value would not apply. In other words, there could be good faith without an actual market value of the property having passed between the defender and the third party.
In such circumstances, the third party could be very seriously prejudiced. That is why the Government should consider again the question of three years and perhaps reduce it to two years. I know that this would go against the recommendation of the Morton Commission on Marriage and Divorce, but this is a serious point. The only reason for allowing a period as long as three years to remain arises out of the unfortunate legal delays which often take place in divorce cases. Unfortunately, they take place in the case of everything else. I would like us to take a rather more hopeful and more optimistic view and hope that these unfortunate delays will not happen so much in the future as they have in the past. In those circumstances, two years might be adequate.
The main reason, as I hope I have made clear, is to protect the interests of an innocent third party to the transaction. I hope that the Government will at least seriously consider the Amendment.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and would also express the hope that we shall not have the delays which so often seem to attend settlements of this kind. I listened to the hon. Gentleman with attention. We are not

firmly fixed to the period of three years. However, I ask the House to resist the Amendment, because we are dealing with a power in the Court of Session to vary a settlement or disposition which has already been made, where that settlement or disposition is in the first place intended to defeat the innocent party's claim to alimony.
It is unusual for the court to have a power of this nature to intervene on a civil contract. Everybody will accept that there is no doubt about the need for, and the value of, a power in this type of case. Obviously there is also a need for a time limit on the distance that the court can go back into the past carrying settlements or dispositions, otherwise the court might be asked to reopen contracts entered into many years ago. If, however, the time limit is too short, the power will be of less value to the innocent party. It is a very fine balance to take.
The hon. Member recognised that this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. That is why it is in the Bill. On top of that, we are also following the line that has been taken before in legislation on the Royal Commission's recommendations. A similar provision to this Clause was passed into law in England and Wales in the Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act, 1958. The period included in that Act is three years. From what I understand of the working of it and people's opinions on the subject, it seems on the whole to be fair. I therefore suggest that the House does not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Millan: This is very much a matter of judgment and balance. In view of what the noble Lady has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30.—(PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVOR SHIP IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS TO PROPERTY.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 20, line 23, to leave out "such deaths shall" and to insert "then".
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed with this Amendment the Amendment in page 20, line 25, leave out from


"property" to end of line 27 and insert:
(a) where the persons were husband and wife, it shall be presumed that neither survived the other; and
(b) in any other case, it shall be presumed that the younger person survived the elder.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if it is agreeable to the House.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Clause provides that, where two persons have died in circumstances suggesting that they died simultaneously, or rendering it uncertain which, if either of them, survived the other, such deaths shall, for purposes affecting succession, be presumed to have occurred in order of the persons' seniority, so that the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder. A similar provision was made for England by Section 184 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. In England, however, the presumption that the younger person survived the elder is not now raised if the two persons were an intestate and his or her spouse. Section 1 of the Intestates' Estates Act, 1952, which introduced a new scheme of intestate succession, excluded the presumption of survivorship in cases where an intestate and his spouse died together.
The reason is that if the statutory presumption had applied in cases where the persons concerned were intestate and the spouse was younger than the intestate, the relatives of that spouse would benefit from the special provisions made by the 1952 Act to the exclusion of the relatives of the intestate. Naturally, the same argument applies in Scotland.
If the Clause is enacted as it stands and the husband and his younger wife die together in an accident, the wife will be presumed to have survived her husband and her estate will benefit to the extent of the provisions made by the Bill for the surviving spouse. However, the wife is dead and her benefits under the Bill form part of her estate and go to the persons entitled to share in it. These persons are likely to be members of her family and, therefore, the presumption of survivorship may, where the persons involved are husband and wife, result in the husband's estate passing out of his family and into the wife's family.
This result is likely to be contrary to the wishes of the intestate who, in such circumstances, would not wish his own family to be excluded. The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude the presumption of survivorship where the persons involved are husband and wife.

Mr. Ross: This raises a complex position, for this could give rise to rather strange anomalies. The noble Lady mentioned only one case and, if we had time, we could go deeply into this matter. While it is all very well for her to say that we should make this change and speak about the effect it will have in cases of intestacy, the Clause applies to testate as well as intestate succession.
The question also arises if the husband and wife were second husband and wife and there are all sorts of complications which could arise in relation to the definition which we are given. It may be that we have raised as many problems as we have solved by this definition, which is now before us for the first time.
Perhaps in this connection, it be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we considered, at the same time, the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, also to line 23, after "shall", to insert:
in the absence of reasonable probability to the contrary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. That will be convenient.

Mr. Ross: The Clause reads:
Where two persons have died in circumstances indicating that they died simultaneously or rendering it uncertain which, if either, of them survived the other"—
and then we get the first Amendment and the word "then "and the Clause continues with the second Government Amendment, which reads:
(a) where the persons were husband and wife, it shall be presumed that neither survived the other; and
(b) in any other case, it shall be presumed that the younger person survived the elder.
The words that trouble me are "or rendering in uncertain" because, by the strict definition of those words, what will happen in a case where one cannot be absolutely sure? In other words, one must achieve certainty, otherwise these provisions apply.
There may be circumstances in which there might be reasonable probability. It was explained in Committee that an older person might be accompanied by a younger person. The older person might be hale and hearty and able to swim while the younger one might, perhaps, be in failing health and unable to swim. It would be wrong to assume, in that case, that the younger person would survive the elder and I suggest that there could be no certainty about it. That is why I suggest the inclusion of the words:
in the absence of reasonable probability to the contrary".
Even if we accept the noble Lady's Amendment it would be wise to include the words I suggest because the court would have more discretion in making a presumption about surviving persons. This question of presuming in regard to a younger person surviving an older one is an unwarrantable assumption to have to make in all the circumstances.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Clause raises a presumption of survivorship where two persons die in circumstances which either indicate that they died simultaneously or render it uncertain which of them died first. Under existing law, which admits of no such presumption, a person who makes a claim which depends on the survivorship of one person over another has to be able to prove that survivorship, and if he cannot do so his claim fails. It would allow the presumption that the younger person survived the elder to apply only
in the absence of reasonable probability to the contrary".
It does not say what happens where there is such a reasonable probability.
9.15 p.m.
The hon. Member referred to the case, which he cited in Committee, of a man who was a strong swimmer and was last seen throwing his child, aged six months, into the water and then diving after it. This is a very lugubrious subject. Both bodies were recovered later, but did not reveal which died first. There might be a reasonable probability, in those circumstances, that the father survived the child, but the court might not be prepared to hold that his survivorship was established.
The Clause as it stands would deal with that situation—though I admit that it does so in an arbitrary fashion—because it would raise the presumption that the child survived the father. I suggest to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that if the Amendment were accepted this presumption would be excluded by the existence of the word "probability", and we would be back exactly to where we started from with, perhaps, the possibility of no claims against the estate being established. I therefore recommend the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr, Millan: The noble Lady has not answered the other point raised by my hon. Friend about what happens in the case of testate succession. The two people concerned might each have made wills leaving money to the other. What happens in those cases? Are those provisions completely voided by this Clause? I am now talking about husband and wife, neither of whom, under paragraph (a), is presumed to survive the other. When each has made a will providing for the other spouse, what happens to such provisions? Are they completely voided, or does one transfer one estate to the other, or what happens? Again, what happens when the husband leaves a will but the wife does not, or the wife leaves a will and the husband does not?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Where both spouses have died testate—let us say, in a disaster at sea—the position is that under the will of each it cannot be established that the conditions are satisfied under which the other would have taken, let us say, as legatee. Accordingly, the alternative provisions in each will would then take effect.
Let me give an example. Suppose the husband who had, in these circumstances, died simultaneously with his wife, had left everything he possessed to his wife, in the event of his wife surviving, and, failing her, then to his children. If it were impossible to establish the condition under which the wife took the legacy, the second part would then take effect. I should also mention that, in Scotland, the fact that the presumption does not apply in the case of the simultaneous accident to husband and wife means that jus relicti or jus relictae will not have


effect; there will not be a passage of those rights that will be claimable by the representative on behalf of the other.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 25, leave out from "property" to end of line 27 and insert:
(a) where the persons were husband and wife, it shall be presumed that neither survived the other; and
(b) in any other case, it shall be presumed that the younger person survived the elder.—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Clause 35.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 21 line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 22.
I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House to take with it the Amendments in page 22, line 33, at end insert new subsection (2), and in line 34, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The purpose of these Amendments is to rewrite the definition of the expression "estate" which appears in the Clause. I admit that the appearance of the Amendments is rather formidable but I hope that on examination it will be made clear that for the most part their purpose is to rearrange material which is already in the Clause.
There are two reasons for making the Amendments. The first is that as the Bill is a succession Bill the interpretation of the term "estate" is a matter obviously of the first importance. We do not think that this has been very well dealt with in the Clause as it stands. The term "estate" is included among the list of terms interpreted by subsection (1) of the Clause, but the interpretation given there is not complete. It is necessary to read also the provisions included in subsection (2) and this might lead to mistakes in the interpretation of the Bill.
We think it better that the provisions defining "estate" should be brought together in one place, and we think them to be so important that they merit a separate subsection. The new subsection includes the definition of "estate" taken from subsection (1), and it includes paragraph (a) of the proviso of the material that at present forms subsection (2).

Paragraph (b) of the proviso is new and is intended to cover the type of case which I can best illustrate by giving an example.
A person, A, leaves property to B in liferent, giving B a power of appointment—that is to say, a power to say to whom the property is to go on his death. A's will also contains a condition that if B fails to exercise his power of appointment, a second power of appointment to decide the disposal of the property on B's death is given to C. If B does not exercise his power of appointment it is open to C to say to whom the property is to go on B's death, and therefore this is property which should not form part of B's estate and go to his executor. The new paragraph (b) is intended to ensure that it does not do so. I hope that this will be clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 33, at end insert:
(2) Any reference in this Act to the estate of a deceased person shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to the whole estate, whether heritable or moveable, or partly heritable and partly moveable, or which the deceased has tested either in his own right or in exercise of a power of appointment, or might (assuming no incapacity) have so tested, and, where the deceased immediately before his death held the interest of a tenant under a tenancy or lease which was not expressed to expire on his death, includes that interest:
Provided that—
(a) where any heritable property belonging to a deceased person at the date of his death is subject to a special destination in favour of any person, the property shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as part of the estate of the deceased unless the destination is one which could properly be, and has in fact been, evacuated by the deceased by testamentary disposition or otherwise; and in that case the property shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it were part of the deceased's estate on which he has tested; and
(b) where any heritable property over which a deceased person had a power of appointment has not been disposed of in exercise of that power and is in those circumstances subject to a power of appointment by some other person, that property shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as part of the estate of the deceased.

In line 34, leave out subsection (2).—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 23, line 1, to leave out subsection (3).
Subsection (3) was included in the Bill to ensure that references to corporeal property would be construed as including rights and interests in the property. On further consideration of the Bill as it stands it does not seem necessary to make this provision. This is why the Amendment will omit subsection (3). I hope that as it omits something it will commend itself to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, in page 31, line 49, at the end, to insert:


7 &amp; 8 Geo. 5. c. 58.
 The Wills (Soldiers and Sailors) Act 1918.
Section 3(2).


This Amendment includes Section 3(2) of the Wills (Soldiers and Sailors) Act, 1918, in the schedule of enactments repealed. That subsection, which was the only part of the 1918 Act which applied to Scotland, empowers minors on active service to dispose by will of heritable property in Scotland. This provision is no longer needed because Clause 28 of the Bill empowers all minors to dispose of heritable property by law, and, as the House knows, minors can already test on moveable property.

Amendment agreed to.

9.26 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In commending the Bill to the House, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I take a few minutes to say something about it, because I believe it to be one of the most important Measures in the reform and modernisation of the law of Scotland that has been laid before Parliament in recent years.
It may not be the easiest of Bills to follow, for the rules governing succession to property are in most countries a complex and difficult branch of the law, and

any Measure that seeks to alter them is unlikely to make easy reading for the layman. But I feel that the Bill has made useful progress through this House, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who have helped in the work of the Standing Committee, because I really believe that a great deal was done to improve the Bill and make it in very good shape to go to another place.
I believe the Bill to be something which is wanted in Scotland. It will remove a great deal of genuine hardship in Scotland. It has not been an easy Measure to bring before the House. I thank all who have taken part in our debates on it, and I commend it to another place.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Ross: The noble Lady was right in suggesting that this is probably one of the most important Bills which we have ever produced and which has come from a Scottish Committee. My only regret is that it has taken the Government 13 years to introduce it. But now we have got it we have made the best of it.
It would be right to say, however, that changed as it is as it leaves us, the Bill could have been better. As soon as we start discussions about succession we find new problems and new gaps which the public have not always the courage properly to face up to. We found today that questions of step-children, illegitimate children and others have not been adequately dealt with.
I sincerely hope that our efforts have been to the benefit of those concerned, and particularly to those widows who, in the past, have suffered, and suffered rather grievously, through the failure of Governments adequately and in a timely way to meet their needs by changing the law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(GRANTS BY REFERENCE TO PROPORTION OF ELDERLY PERSONS IN POPULATION.)

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after the second "year" to insert:
not being later than the year 1967–68".
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, for the House to take at the same time the third Amendment on the Notice Paper, in Clause 2, page 2, line 8, after "1964", insert:
and ending not later than 31st March, 1968".

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases, yes.

Sir K. Joseph: These two Amendments are put down in compliance with an undertaking given in Committee to the effect that, since the Bill is, as its Title clearly shows, an interim Measure, it would make sense to introduce a terminal date. In Committee, the proposal was that the terminal date should be 1969, but, as the next revaluation is due in 1968, the Government have thought it right that the terminal date should coincide with the next revaluation and come in 1968.
This should give sufficient time for both the Allen Committee's report and the survey now being undertaken by the Government of the allocation of rising local authority expenditure between local and central taxation to be digested and for the necessary provisions to be embodied in the necessary Government legislation. The two Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 embody the terminal date in 1968.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We on this side are glad to accept the Amendments. Although one of my hon. Friends urged in Committee that there should be a terminal date, we felt that there were many unsatisfactory principles embodied in the Bill as a whole and that it was not desirable that it should be, or should be regarded as, permanent

legislation. The one anxiety was this. The Bill gives certain reliefs where they will be very badly needed, and one wonders, naturally, whether it would be wise to put in a terminal date.
However it seems perfectly clear that, when the Bill approaches its terminal date, any Government will feel obliged to make, it good time, some rearrangement of local government finance which will genuinely make this interim Measure unnecessary. It will be a matter of importance for whoever is charged with the task of government between now and the time when the Bill expires to see that it is replaced in good time by satisfactory arrangements for local government finance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(RELIEF FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCUPIERS OF DWELLINGS.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "dwelling" to the end of line 2 on page 2.
I think that it might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we were to consider with this Amendment the other seven Government Amendments, all connected with the sane point.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the. House so pleases.

Mr. Corfield: This group of Amendments is designed to give effect to a proposal made in Standing Committee by the hon Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) which the Government accepted in principle. Under the Bill as presented, Clause 2 would apply only to dwellings which were rated on 31st March, 1963. This is the effect of the words which the first Amendment would delete. This restriction was deliberate because the Bill was designed to deal with the sharp increases in rates following the 1963 valuation. If a dwelling was not raed immediately before the new valuation lists came into force, either because it did not then exist or because it was vacant on that date, there could hardly be said to have been an increase in rates following revaluation.
This approach was welcomed by some hon. Members of the Committee on the


ground that it would be wrong to give relief to a family which had moved into a dwelling after 31st March, 1963, knowing full well what the level of rates would be. But, as the hon. Member for Fulham pointed out in a very persuasive speech, there could be circumstances in which a local authority might think it appropriate to give relief nevertheless, for instance, when an old person was being moved into an old person's unit of accommodation.
This series of Amendments is designed to deal with that and similar cases. The later Amendments deal mainly with the necessary provisions for putting a notional pre-revaluation valuation upon the property in order that the calculation may be carried out. The second Amendment deals with the valuation. I promised my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in Committee that I would consider the question of a divisor in order to give the valuation officers a quick rule of thumb in dealing with the valuation and to ease the pressure on the valuation staff. I appreciate that the valuation officers have a heavy burden, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be an immensely difficult task to find a series of divisors which would be satisfactory. Conditions vary very much, even in the same area, depending on the type of house, and so on, and in different parts of the country.
We think that it will be fairly rare that a case of this sort will arise. The valuation officer will be called upon to put this notional valuation on a property if, but only if, the rating authority requests. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the extra load will be very heavy and I think that the formulation of a series of divisors might prove a heavier burden than the valuations of the properties and certainly would not be as satisfactory.

Mr. M. Stewart: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the number of people and houses affected by the Amendments is not likely to be large. On the other hand, if these Amendments had not been made there might have been a few but flagrant anomalous cases and it would have been too late to prevent them.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave me the credit for the Amendment. There

fore, before the lightning strikes me. I had better place the glory where it is due—partly on my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), who, with his customary shrewdness in these matters, spotted this gap in the Bill within about five minutes of reading it, and partly on the treasurer of the Bullingdon Rural District Council, who wrote me a most helpful letter suggesting a way in which the matter might be rectified. That exact method of dealing with it did not commend itself to the Government. Any method suggested by anybody else never does commend itself to any Government, but I am happy that—in what I am prepared to believe is, for drafting reasons, the most satisfactory way—the basic principle is to be included in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 8, after "1964", insert:
and ending not later than 31st March 1968".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 3.—(CALCULATION OF RATES ATTRIBUTABLE TO DWELLING.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 11, leave out "and (6)" and insert "(6) and (7)".

In page 3, leave out line 17 and insert "on that date".

In page 3, line 27, after "1964", insert:
or the first day thereafter on which the hereditament for the time being consisting of or including that dwelling appears in any valuation list".

In page 3, line 29, after "dwelling", insert "or the site thereof".

In page 4, line 12, at end insert:
(7) If, in the case of any dwelling, the hereditament for the time being consisting of or including that dwelling did not appear in any valuation list on 31st March 1963, then, for the purposes of any calculation with respect to that dwelling under subsection (1) of this section, the valuation officer shall, if but only if the rating authority request him so to do, notify that authority as to what in the opinion of that officer the rateable value of that hereditament would have been on 31st March 1963 if it had fallen to be valued on that date in accordance with the provisions then in force with respect to valuation for rating, but with the substitution in section 2 (3) of the Valuation for Rating Act 1953 for references to the


time of valuation of references to the time of the request; and—
(a) the value so notified shall be deemed to be the rateable value of that hereditament on 31st March 1963; and
(b) the said subsection (1) shall have effect as if after the word "dwelling" in the last place where it occurs in that subsection there were inserted the words "or the site thereof".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause 4.—(VARIATION OR TERMINATION OF RELIEF, &C.)

Mr. John Temple: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end to insert:
(2) No action under the foregoing subsection shall diminish the relief granted to any ratepayer unless the circumstances of that ratepayer have changed.
My proposed subsection is perfectly clear. Its object is to give certainty to the ratepayer who has been granted relief by the local authorities that that relief will not be varied if the ratepayer's circumstances have not varied although the circumstances of the local authority may have varied.
It seems to me that in drafting subsection (1) the Government draftsmen were slightly misunderstood by the person responsible for writing the Explanatory Memorandum. That part of the Explanatory Memorandum dealing with Clause 4 states:
Clause 4 empowers the rating authority to vary or end relief at any time if there has been a material change of circumstances…".
It would appear from the Explanatory Memorandum that what was thought at that time was a material change of circumstances of the ratepayer. Only during discussion in Committee did it emerge that the relief which the ratepayer had been given to expect during the year could be varied if the circumstances of the local authority varied.
My right hon. Friend had something to say about this particular point, which we discussed in detail. As reported in column 177 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 12th February he said:
I have undertaken to consider that without giving a firm promise of an Amendment "—.[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee G, 12th February, 1964 c. 177.]
So at that moment my right hon. Friend was giving consideration to this matter.
I waited until such time as the main Government Amendments appeared on the Notice Paper. Seeing that he had

not taken steps to alter in any way Clause 4, tabled an Amendment. I do not claim that the drafting of the Amendment is perfect. However, the object is perfectly clear and I hope my right hon. Friend, if he cannot accept the exact words, might recommend the House to accept the spirit of the Amendment, because I think it quite contrary to the views of all of us that we should expect the ratepayer who has been given relief or can expect it to have it taken away from him under unexpected circumstances.
My right hon. Friend said, as reported in column 177 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the same day that, in fact, this happening was most unlikely. During the course of that discussion he said that it may well be that some local authority would gain a nuclear power station or two and, therefore, the rates would come down. [AN HON. MEMBER: "One, not two."] At any rate, one would make the rates go down considerably. I cannot see that the local authority on the occasion of the rates going down slightly would seek to vary the relief granted for a period of only a year to a particular ratepayer.
I take the view, which, I think, is shared by my right hon. Friend, that it is wholly unlikely and very improbable that rating authorities would behave in this way, but I submit that if we leave the Clause as it is every local authority which is giving a relief on rates will have to print in small letters at the bottom of the rates notice, "This relief may be varied without notice because there may be a variation in the circumstances of the local authority". Therefore, the ratepayer, who may be a hardship case, will be worried by the fact that rates may be varied without a change of circumstances in his case.
The local authority will get the 50 pet cent. grant from the Government. That makes it more unlikely that it will seek to vary this relief. My Amendment I think extremely reasonable. In the circumstances I envisage it would be quite possible for the rating authority to give more relief, but it would not be possible to diminish the relief which had been once granted. I believe that is the spirit in which the Clause is drafted. I am seeking only to put the actual meaning which I believe lies behind the Clause


into the wording to get precision and certainty.
I think that the ratepayers themselves have every reason to expect this relief which has been granted to them after they have gone over all the hurdles the Parliamentary Secretary described in Committee. If they have satisfied the local authority on all these scores they are perfectly entitled to think that their rate relief cannot be diminished in any way during that period of one year.

9.45 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has got on to a good point in substance, but I am going to suggest that we can rely upon the inherent reasonableness of local authorities and that it is not necessary to write into the Bill such words as he suggests.
Let me just make sure that we all understand the very narrow purview and context of this Amendment. Under Clause 2(3,a) the relief can be granted only for one rating period at a time. Therefore, the Amendment my hon. Friend suggests to Clause 4—he made this plain—cannot possibly limit the discretion of the local authority beyond the rating period itself. Nor is he seeking to do so. He is saying that it should not be open to a rating authority, because of a change in the circumstances of the rating authority itself, to reduce the relief which has been given during the rating period for which it has been given. We all understand that very narrow context of his Amendment. We are all agreed that it would be right and only fair to the other ratepayers, and to the taxpayers, that the rating authority should be free to reduce the relief already given in the same rating period if the circumstances of the ratepayer who has been given relief had changed sufficiently to justify such a reduction.
The question is whether we need write into the Bill an embargo on the rating authority to make such a change because of a change in the circumstances of the rating authority itself. It is conceivable that a rating authority's position could be radically altered in the way both I and my hon. Friend have suggested. My hon. Friend the Joint

Parliamentary Secretary tells me that in his constituency there is a rural district—Thornbury—which does have two nuclear power stations. The arrival of a new power station in a rural district, when it comes into commission, can, of course, very dramatically alter the ratepaying prospects. I should make it clear that I agree with my hon. Friend that it is most improbable that a rating authority will wish to job back on the relief given to an individual ratepayer during the rating period for which the relief has been given. What the rating authority will do is to take into account its new resources when it comes, under Clause 2(3) to consider relief for the next rating period.
The trouble is that if we were to write in the Amendment to achieve my hon. Friend's purpose I fear his words would not cover the need, and we should have to spell out in very great detail a long embargo on a rating authority's action, which we all agree is inherently improbable because rating authorities are responsible bodies and will not job back in this way.
I am very willing to say to my hon. Friend that in the circular which will in due course go out to rating authorities I will draw their attention to the assumption that I am making that they will not job backwards because of a change in their resources, but I would far prefer not to complicate the Bill by writing in what would be a very heavyweight Amendment to achieve my hon. Friend's purpose. My hon. Friend shakes his head; but I have taken advice on this, and I am told that to make sure a rating authority would not job back, all the various reasons for which an individual ratepayer's situation might change would need to be spelled cut, if the rating authority's discretion were to be left as we would all wish.
I ask my hon. Friend to rest content with the assurance I have given him, and which I am only making, really, in the light of his arguments, and' not because I believe that rating authorities are likely to misuse their discretion in this way. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The House, in looking at the Amendment before us, and particularly in the light of the advice of the Minister, is in some danger, for the Minister now says


that he is going to make recommendations to local authorities about something which is not in the Bill at all. The Bill does not make provision for that. Clause 4(1), as I see it, enables local authorities to vary, on the evidence available to them, their recognition of hardship to the individual, and to vary their decisions, arising out of the resources of the authorities themselves. Having reflected on what was said in Committee and studied the words of the Amendment, I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment would make the Clause far too rigid for the local authorities and it is quite unnecessary.
Clause 4(2,a) enables the owner-occupier in effect to obtain some remission by way of refund where certain conditions apply, while subsection (2,b) permits tenants to be able to receive periodical payments where conditions apply. Neither of the provisions would limit the local rating authority to considering hardship, either upwards or downwards, only once in the same rating year. These provisions are wide enough to give full flexibility to the local authority to make variations from month to month. This being so, meeting the point put by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) would invite hardship.
Under Clause 4(1), there may be a variation of relief for reasons which have nothing to do with individual applications by ratepayers. For example, one authority in 1965 may qualify for the relief under Clause I by having 10·1 per cent. people over the age of 65 among its population, but in the following year this proportion might fall to 9·9 per cent. Because of that purely statistical result, it will lose all grant under Clause 1.
In addition, its interest in meeting hardship, either upwards or downwards, as expressed in Clauses 2 and 4, will be clearly influenced by the fact that it will be getting less from the central Government. Its views on claims of individual hardship will change because it will be unable, for the first time, to meet the criterion laid down by the Government. In view of this sort of problem we should consider resisting the Amendment because of its rigidity or, indeed, subsection (1) itself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What we will decide is whether we insert the words

proposed in the Amendment. What ever may happen hereafter or what we do with subsection (1) would appear to fall outside it.

Mr. Mapp: There is the prospect of the local authority, in dealing with the question of hardship, assuming that the bridle of these words is preponderant. Without the Amendment, it will have a range of decisions available. If it were to be limited by the Amendment it would probably accept a lower criterion for meeting hardship because it would be under the continuing requirement of being unable to change its decision within the same rating period. The Amendment, though well intentioned, is too rigid and the House should not accept it.

Mr. Temple: By leave of the House; I am naturally a little disappointed by the reply of my right hon. Friend in that, while apparently agreeing with the spirit of the Amendment, he cannot advise the House to accept it. I should not have thought that it was quite the heavyweight job for the Government draftmen that my right hon. Friend has made it out to be. However, recognising that this is an interim Bill, perhaps I can let this point go and accept my right hon. Friend's offer to deal with the matter in a Ministerial circular. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 22, after "1964" insert:
or the first day thereafter on which that hereditament appeared in that list".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause 8.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 10, after "fell", insert "or would have fallen". [Sir K. Joseph.]

9.56 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As I stressed in my Second Reading speech, the Bill has a strictly limited purpose. It does not aim at meeting the complaints of those who argue that the steadily increasing cost of local authority services places an excessive burden on ratepayers, and on domestic


ratepayers in particular. This is a question which will have to be considered as part of the comprehensive review of local and central government finance being undertaken this year. The Bill is concerned only with hardship caused by the extraordinary rating increase associated in some places with revaluation.
The Bill does two things. Clause 1 provides for a grant payable to rating authorities at the rate of £5 for every old person in the local population in excess of a ratio of 100 per 1,000. Clause 2 empowers local authorities to grant relief to domestic ratepayers whose rates in 1964–65 are at least 25 per cent., and £5 higher, than the rates payable by them for the rate period 1962–63. This 25 per cent. minimum effectively excludes from relief cases where the increased rate is due simply to the normal growth of local authority expenditure.
These two provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 are complementary. It is true that the grant under Clause 1 is not directly linked with the question of hardship, but my postbag leaves me in no doubt that, by and large, it is the areas with a high proportion of old people who have felt the pinch of revaluation most. It is in these areas that the need for individual relief is, therefore, likely to be greatest. Under Clause 5, the Exchequer will already be meeting half the cost of individual relief, more in the areas of greatest need. To increase this proportion might undermine local responsibility. The grant given under Clause 1 is independent of the relief granted under Clause 2, but it provides the means whereby, up to a point, relief can be given under Clause 2 without any burden being placed on other ratepayers.
There have been two main criticisms about the relief provisions of the Bill. One is the absence of guidance about the nature of hardship. If I had a working definition of hardship which would convince everyone, a definition which would be as acceptable in St. Marylebone as in a rural district at the opposite end of the country, hon. Members might be sure that I would have put it in the Bill, but to give a guess, to take a pot-shot, would be mischievous when we have the Allen Committee

working very hard to produce for us some hard facts about the impact of rates. We all know that hardship is relative and can mean different things not only to different people, but in different places. I am unrepentant. It must be left to each local authority to decide on the circumstances in its own area how to frame a policy which will weigh the needs of those who claim relief against the situation in the locality.
The other chief criticism is centred on the administrative problem presented by the relief provisions. I do not want to belittle the problem facing—

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Business.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Sir K. Joseph: I was saying that I do not want to belittle the problem facing perhaps a small handful of local authorities, in particular the Central London boroughs. I can understand their desire for a clear scale of relief and of a yardstick to measure hardship, but it is impossible to offer them in the Bill a hard and fast solution. It may well be that the authorities concerned can get together and evolve some general recognition of what, prima facie, would be the cases deserving investigation and relief, and no doubt they are thinking on these lines.
Some concern has been expressed that local authorities may find themselves in trouble with the district auditor over the meaning that they attach to hardship. In fact, by leaving the question of hardship to the satisfaction of the local authorities, the Clause reserves merits to the authorities so long as they act honestly and so reduces the area of challenge. Although the district auditor is unfettered in his discharge of his functions, his discretion is subject to the ordinary rule of law, and I am advised that the broad position is that a rating authority need not fear disallowance and surcharge unless it has come to a decision improperly, by which I mean arbitarily without evidence, or unless it has decided unreasonably.
As regards unreasonableness, the district auditor cannot substitute his own judgment of whether or not relief should be given for that of the rating authority. To establish unreasonableness, he would have to show that no reasonable man would support the authority's views. I hope that this will reassure local authorities.
This is an interim Bill, not only in title, but now also in fact. If the Government can reach a fully considered balanced view of the rating system leading to long-term proposals for legislation—if it be needed—well before 1968, hon. Members may be sure that they will do so. In the meantime, the Bill provides a palliative. I have made no secret of its being an emergency Measure, and the response that it has had from both sides of the House shows that there is general recognition of the need for it.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. G.. A. Pargiter: This is probably one of the most slipshod Bills that has been presented to the House during the time that I have been a Member. Hardly any Member is really in favour of it, but we are being virtually blackmailed into passing it because of the desperate need of authorities to receive some form of assistance from the central Government to deal with the ever-increasing problem of rising rates.
It is only in that context that the Bill is acceptable at all. Given a free choice as to how this money might be disposed of to local authorities, I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House could find better ways of dealing with this problem than that chosen by the Government.
There is only one good thing to be said about Clause 1. Originally, the intention was to stick this money on to the block grant. At least the local authorities had the wisdom to oppose this strongly, because if they had not done so this would have been the Treasury's thin end of the wedge to show that in respect of welfare services local authorities were receiving something in the block grant, and the Minister knows that this amount of money will not provide the assistance which local authorities ought to receive. For a long time local authorities have taken the view that they do not receive the assistance which they ought to be given

towards the cost of welfare services, and which should be in the same proportion as for other social services.
The fact that we have been able to keep it separate from the block grant is of some advantage, but beyond that what advantage is it? It is a general relief. The large ratepayer—the corporate bode, and the large insurance company with the huge office block—will receive most of the benefit from this £6½ million. The benefit received will be in proportion to the amount of rates paid, because it is a proportionate relief. In my estimation the average old-age pensioner will receive a benefit of about 1d. or 2d. a. week. He will be lucky if it is as much as 2d. He may benefit to the extent of only 2s. a year.
There is no logical reason why this grant should be based on the proportion of old people living in a borough. That is the formula by which the £.6½ million is to be distributed, but any other formula could have been used. By basing it on the lumber of old people the Government have given the impression that relief is to be granted in respect of the old people, but that is not so. It is a general relief. How it can be regarded as interim relief for hardship I do not know, bearing in mind what the original intention was supposed to be.
The Minister has been told how much better this money could have been distributed if local authorities had been given more discretion in determining what was meant by the word "poverty". If local authorities had been allowed greater discretion in the matter they could have used that discretion to much greater advantage than they can now.
The Bill is accepted not because many people think that it is a good one. As I have said, it is slipshod. If the intention was that it should bring some political advantage to the Government I think that that intention has failed. They will not get much out of it. If it has been introduced in response to demands made at Tory Patty conferences to do something about the burden of rates, I am afraid that many people will be sadly disappointed at what the Bill does. The best that cal be said of it is that it is an interim Measure.
I can only hope that when it goes to another place it will be thrown out—because their Lordships will not be under


the same pressure as hon. Members have been under here. I hope that they will throw it out for want of precision, and that we shall then be able to get something much better, something which will give greater advantage to the people who need help most—the poor people, and those suffering hardship.
The £5 bar will be a terrific handicap in this respect, because it is at the lower end of the scale, among the people who pay the lowest rates, that any increase brings most hardship. We have had no indication of what will happen in respect of old people who are entitled to receive National Assistance. I suppose that those who receive it will rank automatically, because the Assistance Board will pay the additional amount of rate, but what about the person who is entitled to receive National Assistance but does not want to apply? Will his local authority tell him that he will have to apply for National Assistance in order to get the advantage of the Bill?
There is no indication of the Minister's views on such matters, and local authorities will have to use their own discretion. Some may tell elderly persons who would be entitled to National Assistance that they will have to apply for it, or forfeit the benefit, but other authorities may tell them that relief will be given because they do not want to drive the old people to the National Assistance Board. It is a question of the point of view that various local authorities will adopt in providing what they regard to be the best service they can give to those who apply for relief. That is one reason why this is a bad Bill.
I shall not vote against the Bill, because I know the desperate need of local authorities for some additional assistance from the central Government, owing to the increased rate burden, but this is just about the worst way in which this relief could have been given.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The opening and closing remarks of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) were almost as ungenerous to the Bill as The Times was this morning. We owe a very genuine measure of thanks to the Government for bringing the Bill forward, for precisely the reason mentioned

by the hon. Gentleman, that there has been a desperate need for something to be done of an interim nature before the long-term results of the general review which, we understand, is now well under way can be produced.
If I have a complaint against my right hon. Friend the Minister, it is that he took such a long time to be convinced that there was a need for an interim Bill. It is not so long ago that some of my hon. Friends and I, with on that occasion the support of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart)—I dislike throwing compliments across the Floor of the House, but on this occasion I am glad to do so—were pressing my right hon. Friend, in an Adjournment debate, to introduce an interim Measure because the country simply could not afford to wait any longer for something to be done about genuine hardship.
There are one or two points which I should like cleared up.

Mr. Dan Jones: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, on balance, there are greater hardships in connection with rents than there are in connection with rates? If there was a need for an interim Measure in connection with rates, was there not a greater need for an interim Measure in connection with rents?

Mr. Bennett: If I were to pursue that argument, I have no doubt that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would rule me out of order almost as speedily as you would have ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order if he had continued. We are not discussing a rent relief Bill, as far as I know.
I was saying that there were one or two points which I think deserve clarification, particularly after the last speech, because I am, if anything, a little more confused than I was before. I say that in no sense of criticism. It is difficult for us to understand quite how the £5 free grant under Clause 1 operates. As I understand it, such a wide discretion is given that not only will circumstances arise of the type outlined by the hon. Member for Southall when this could be used for a general rate relief, irrespective of hardship, but it could also presumably be used by a council for no sort of rate relief at all. For building an amenity hall, for instance, on the front


in my constituency, or for anything else. I cannot see any compulsion as to use at all on a local authority.
I am not suggesting that the excellent ones in the area I represent would do anything other than devote this money to relieving hardship. Nevertheless, as read the Bill at the moment, a rating area with a large proportion of old people could get this sum from the Exchequer and not use it for any form of rate relief at all. I should like some clarification from my right hon. Friend on this point.
As I understand the Bill, looking at it the other way, a wise and a generous local authority could devote this relief not to overall rate relief but to specific discretionary relief. I should like some confirmation on this point.

Mr. Pargiter: This is specifically designed to be given in general relief of rates. Therefore, there can be no question of it being used specifically.

Mr. Bennett: I concur with the use of the phrase "general relief of rates", but it comes into a ceiling sum. I am not suggesting that that sum be allocated for sonic other project. When talking of of a sum of so much money in the "kitty", one part could be used for so-called general relief of rates, but the other part could be used for some project which could not have been undertaken had not the local authority got the extra money. It is on this that I need the clarification of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. J. T. Price: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is arguing. He may be interested to know that when the same argument was addressed to the Minister in rather different terms in Committee, namely. that an authority could take the relief under Clause 1 but dispense no relief of hardship under Clause 2, the Minister's reply was to the effect that, if this happened in any local authority's area, probably the British Army would have to be called in to deal with the public disturbance which would arise if the authority did not dispense the money which had been allocated to it by the central Government. We could not understand that. Generally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman: he is quite right.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful for these unexpected echoes of support. However, I am seeking clarification from my right hon. Friend because I did not have the good fortune to be on the Standing Committee. It is very rarely that one says that, but I tried very hard to be on the Standing Committee, but was, in fact, not selected. I should have enjoyed nothing more than taking part in the discussions upstairs. I will ask yet again, and this time make it clear that I asked my right hon. Friend, for the clarification I am seeking, much as, I repeat, I welcome the echoes of support which I have been given.
My last point is a most important one. I know from some of the correspondence I have received from all over the country that there is a tendency to regard this Bill as introducing a charity and a means test and one which, therefore, proud people should not resort to. I hope that this idea will be got rid of finally, once and for all, tonight. It is a very odd thing that people seem to find something distasteful about setting out their circumstances and claiming relief from local taxation, which is all rates are, yet they are perfectly happy to fill up an Income Tax form claiming every conceivable relief and setting out all their circumstances in detail.
We must repeat tonight that this is not charity. There is nothing more wrong about claiming the reliefs allowed under the law from local taxation than there is about claiming reliefs from national taxation. I hope that people in all circumstances realise that, the Bill having been passed, they will be as entitled to the personal reliefs possible under it as they are to personal reliefs from any proposals which any Chancellor of the Exchequer makes with regard to national taxation.
Having said that, and subject only to receiving the clarification for which I have asked, I wish the Bill every success. However, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is very much an interim Measure and it has proved what many of us have long felt on these benches, and doubtless elsewhere, which is that there is a fundamental need for an altogether new look at the relationship between local and national taxation, and this cannot be delayed much longer.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Temple: I was indeed glad that my right hon. Friend stressed in his concluding remarks to the House that this is an interim Measure. It is entirely right that a terminal date should have been put into the Bill. This was pressed on my right hon. Friend from both sides of the House. I very much hope that the help will be channelled to those who need it. Under Clause 2 this is more than likely to happen.
I have two extremely practical points to put to the House, particularly in regard to schemes which local authorities will be almost bound to draw up to administer the Measure. too, have read the leader in The Times today. I found that in one respect The Times leader was itself unsound. It described the Bill as an unsound Bill. I am afraid that The Times leader is itself unsound. It stated that this would be decided
…by some anonymous person or panel".
I suggest that The Times has erred. What will happen is that local authority members themselves will decide the schemes under which this hardship will be relieved.
We are, in this connection, up against a problem which I foresaw on Second Reading. I raised this point but, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not answer it. I said:
…local authority members themselves who will have to frame regulations on these matters may well, and I would think many will, actually be candidates for relief under this Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December. 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1294.
I believe that local authority members and local authorities will be in a grave difficulty, because when we discussed the Bill in Standing Committee it was mentioned that in one local authority area 95 per cent. of the ratepayers would qualify to be considered for hardship relief under Clause 2(1,a). If 95 per cent. of the ratepayers in that area will qualify and have a prima fade case for a claim for relief, it is more than possible that 95 per cent. of the members of the local authority will have a prima facie case for a claim.
All hon. Members who are conversant with these matters know that those persons who may be interested in a particular financial measure or decision of

a local authority are not allowed either to speak or to vote when that measure is under consideration. We are thus facing a real practical difficulty because I believe that there are many local authorities which, when faced with making a scheme under the Bill, will just not be able to tackle this in the normal way unless they can be given a special dispensation for members who may qualify for relief to enable them to make a scheme of this nature. I am not saying that I have the answer to this one. I put this point on Second Reading and I raise it again now in the hope that the Minister will comment on it.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Because a Question of mine on this issue to the Prime Minister was not reached yesterday I received a Written Reply. The Prime Minister said that his right hon. Friend had power to grant dispensation in these cases and that where dispensation was not granted it would not be possible for the administration to work.

Mr. Temple: That was exactly the point I made. I said that my right hon. Friend would probably have to exercise his discretion and grant dispensation in these cases.

Mr. Loughlin: If the hon. Member knew that, why did he ask the question?

Mr. Temple: It is comparatively easy to identify, when a local authority is considering a rent rebate or differential scheme, its members concerned with a matter of that nature because they would be living in a local authority house. In this case we are up against a greater difficulty.
The second practical point I wish to raise concerns the giving of information to ratepayers. If this scheme is to work properly and equitably it is imperative that those who have a claim to be considered must know that they in fact have a claim. Unless a local authority will inform all householders whose rates have gone up by £5 or 25 per cent. between 1962–63 and 1964–65 there will be a great many householders who will not know that they have a prima facie case for candidature to be considered for a hardship relief.
It is under the first so-called hurdle—the hurdle to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary always refers—that it


is the dwelling which is the criteria of the first hardship. It may be that a dwelling changes hands after, say, two years and a ratepayer may then go in and fall into the first category. He may be a candidate for hardship, his predecessor not having been a candidate. It is imperative that the local authority identifies all the dwellings that may then or at a future date by occupied by a person who will have a prima facie case to be considered as a candidate for this hardship relief.
I turn to an even more important question of information. Persons residing in a dwelling by reason of which they can be considered as a candidate for hardship should know, or be informed, of the local authority's scheme which will govern the administration of the hardship relief to be given under Clause 2(1,b). I hope that my right hon. Friend will take steps to ask local authorities to inform all possible candidates of the schemes which are in operation, otherwise a ratepayer will go to his citizens advice bureau, local M.P. councillor and all sorts of people and receive a variety of information when what he really requires to know is about the scheme and that it is being operated equitably.
This is a complicated subject. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and my hon. Friend the Member for

Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) found it—if I may say so without in the least being disrespectful—a little confusing. That is only an example of the confusion that may exist among ratepayers. Ratepayers will certainly not have had the privilege of being on the Standing Committee and having that knowledge of the details of this Measure acquired by members of that Committee.
This is an extremely complicated Measure and what should be issued by the local authorities and, possibly, by the Ministry, is a handy brochure—a child's guide. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion. I am sure that it is absolutely necessary, just as was the guide issued by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary in respect of the operation of the Rent Act.
Having mentioned what I consider to be these two extraordinarily practical points, I agree with my right hon. Friend when he says that what we are looking forward to is a complete review of the rating system. What we want brought in right across the board is far more equity. I hope the Government will give a guarantee to ratepayers that rates will not advance any faster than personal incomes. That will be an assurance of far more value to ratepayers than an interim Measure of this nature.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: This is a Bill that nobody loves. Hon. Members cannot find it in their hearts to love it. The Times newspaper does not love it, and the Minister himself regards it merely as a palliative. It has not aroused very much enthusiasm, because it does not go to the root of the problem. It does not even go to the root of the problem of hardship in an interim manner.
One of the most striking things about the Bill is not so much whether it is good or bad but that it is utterly irrelevant. When we have a situation in which local authorities whose rateable values have gone up and whose rates may be expected to decrease, whether with or without the addition of one or two nuclear stations, are nevertheless entitled to a grant under Clause 1, the utter futility of the Bill is exposed once and for all.
Had it been made a condition that only in cases where there was real hardship could a local authority be permitted to have a grant under Clause 1, there would at least have been the advantage of some degree of logic, but that is not the case. The criterion is: has the authority in question got amongst its population more than 10 per cent. of elderly people? Why elderly people? Why not red-headed people? Why not choose some other criterion altogether?
The Minister says, and I understand the point, that the reason is that where we have a larger proportion of elderly people we are more inclined to have the hardship requiring relief. Then let us accept that position, but let us also say that the local authority itself must make the case for hardship before it avails itself of the grant. That is not done. Local authorities have only to say, "We have over 10 per cent. of elderly people in our area so, even though we shall not apply this for any relief whatsoever, may we please have some money?" The Government must then give the money.
My difficulty is that I should like to vote against the Bill but I can see that, if I do so, I, and those of my hon. Friends who feel this way about it, will be accused, quite wrongly, of not having any sympathy for those people who are being hardly hit by present conditions. We do feel that sympathy, but do not feel that this Bill meets the point. That

is my first reason for not being able to bring myself to vote against the Bill.
The second reason is that in this bingo-like Bill quite fortuitously the Minister may be helping the occasional person who is hardly hit. It is purely accidental, but it could happen. I will give the Minister credit in assuming that he wants to help people, but it is entirely accidental if it occurs.
One small point that I should like to emphasise is this. The Minister said, in defence of the principle that the authority itself decides the criterion of hardship, that, after all, hardship means different things to different people and different things to different localities. Hardship means a very difficult time financially in view of an increase of rates, and that is really all that we are concerned with. We all hope that the permanent review of the rating question will come speedily, but I must say that there would be considerable criticism of it from this side of the House, at any rate, and I assume probably from all quarters of the House, if, when a permanent solution is given to us, it were to have several different criteria—different because, as the Minister has people. We would expect a general for-said, it means different things to different mula. I could never understand why we could not have had a general formula under this Bill.
This is a bad Bill, an irrelevant Bill, but, for the reasons that I have stated. rather reluctantly I would not advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. William Clark: I do not think it can be emphasised sufficiently that this is an interim Measure, and hon. Members in all quarters of the House are waiting for the Allen Committee to report so that we can look at the whole question of rating in a more realistic manner. I hope that when the Allen Committee does report, this question of hardship will be dealt with, and not in the way that hardship is dealt with under the National Assistance Regulations but rather more on one's annual return of income. This is the way in which people can realise that they are entitled to benefit without the taint of any charity attached to it.
One thing that I like about the Bill is that it is, to a certain extent, selective in its relief of hardship. But there is one thing that I cannot understand. This point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). Incidentally, I am sorry, as probably other hon. Members are, that he was not on the Standing Committee. It is always nice to have volunteers on a Committee. I cannot understand why we could not have made Clause 1 dependent on a local authority operating the scheme under Clause 5. I should have thought that this would be simple. The idea of the Government is to give relief from rates. Any money paid under this Bill should go to people suffering hardship, and obviously if a local authority were to proceed under Clause I but did not give any relief in respect of rates I think that that rating authority would be getting money under false pretences.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the circular which is to be sent to local authorities he should add a statement to the effect that it is expected that any money received by a local authority under Clause 1 must be utilised not in general relief of rates but for the relief of hardship borne by persons over the age of 65.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: This Bill ought never to have been brought forward. I think that even the Minister wishes he could turn the clock back and not have the Bill before the House.
We all know why the Bill has been brought forward. Certain hon. Members opposite were bulldozed into it by their constituents, probably because they live in seaside resorts where quite a number of residents are retired and where, therefore, the proportion of elderly people is well over 10 per cent. Clause 1 will give help to authorities of that kind, but it will not really help the people for whom it is intended.
Anybody residing in an area where there are 10 per cent, or more of elderly people will most likely draw some benefit from the Clause. Many local authorities will qualify for payment under the Clause, but they will be mostly seaside resorts and inland places where

there has been a drift of young people away from the area. Authorities of those two types will be the ones which will get the benefit.
Had the Government made certain that the money received by local authorities under the Clause would be spent on the welfare of elderly people, I could have understood it. But there is nothing in the Bill to compel a local authority to spend any more money on the welfare of the elderly, for whom I a it sure the money was intended. Why did not hon. Members opposite realise that this should be done, and why did they not press the Government to alter the Clause so that it would be fairer and more just in its application? The reason is that the Bill was drawn up in haste and not a great deal of thought was given to it because there was some electoral pressure from hon. Members opposite on the Government to do something to try to ease the viciousness of the Rating and Valuation Act. It means that Government supporters are not playing the game even with their own constituents, because it can easily be proved that under Clause 2 their own constituents can suffer and be in more dire need of relief than those who will get the benefit.
I wish hon. Members opposite would be more open about what they mean by "hardship". There may be a young married man with a family off work through sickness, with a small income which may keep him away from National Assistance, but his rates may have gone up £4 10s. in the period concerned and he will get no relief. There may also be a person with a reasonable income from investments or pension who may prove to the satisfaction of the local authority—I sympathise with members of a local authority who have to decide what may be a hardship—that, his rates having gone up £7 or £8, some relief should be granted. There is nothing fair about it. The Bill cannot be applied fairly and justly to the whom country. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know this, and know that this is a Bill which ought never to have been brought here. But in order to give satisfaction to a few of their back trenchers, who seem to have more power than they should, the Government gave way.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) suggested that brochures should be issued. Of course they should. The fullest information should be made available to the ratepayers to ensure that those who are entitled to qualify make the necessary application. In some areas there is really going to be a means test. Some local authorities will be generous in their interpretation and application of Clause 2 while others will not. They may be adjoining local authorities, and friends will be discussing with one another what has happened in each local authority. This will create acrimony because one authority has been more generous than the other.
It is going to be left to each local authority to decide what is hardship and what is not. How will they decide? There will be some people who have their own private businesses or people with investments who are comparatively wealthy, but the local authority will not necessarily be aware of this fact. Such people could get the full benefit of the Clause. Their friends and neighbours, who might know a little more about their financial standing than the local authority will say that to give such people the benefit of the Clause is very unfair. They will say, "We are more entitled to benefit under the Clause than they are. We cannot get the benefit because our local authority has been more diligent in obtaining information or has not been so generous. Our income has been there for anyone to see."
As I say, it will be nothing but a means test. If it is to be run fairly it will have to be that. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that it must not be accepted as being charity. The hon. Gentleman does not want it to be charity because he is probably thinking more about people who are better off than of those who have to accept charity at the present time. What surprises me about the Bill and about the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that when the 1957 Rent Act became law and some people found it difficult to afford the rents asked, even though they had to afford the rates, it was said that they should find accommodation more suited to their income. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite said then, but

it is quite different now when we are discussing rates.
The Bill would have been more just if it had said that some relief should be given for every house or bungalow in the country occupied by old people On which the rates had been increased. It should not have been done in the way proposed in the Bill. Does the Minister think it fair that a person with a very low income, perhaps just above the National Assistance level, and whose rates have gone up by £4 10s. a year should get no benefit at all while another person who may have a substantial income, as I have explained, should receive relief? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify a Bill of this sort? I do not think that anyone can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that he could not oppose the Bill. Of course, the Government know that we cannot oppose it. I should like to do so because it does not deal fairly with those people who are in need and who will be in need as a result of increased rates. I have as great a desire as anyone in the House to give relief to those who will be hurt very badly and unjustly under our rating system, but I want to do it more fairly and properly than the Bill will do it. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make certain that the Allen Committee reports as early as possible and that the unfair and unjust provisions of this Bill will be corrected well before 1968.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: We have had speeches from three hon. Members opposite. It has been quite clear that not one of those hon. Members has the slightest idea of the type of conditions which exist in the part of Sussex which I represent. In my constituency I have two councils which have had very steep increases in their rates and I have other areas nearby which have had little or no increases at all. From one hon. Member we had it that the Bill gave no real relief to old people. The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) told us that the point about elderly people was quite irrelevant. Now, the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) says that we were bulldozed into action by elderly people. It


seems very strange to me, after having been in the House for some time and having heard some of the speeches made from the Opposition benches, to hear a series of attacks on elderly people on this occasion.
In my constituency, there was no question of being bulldozed. When I saw what the situation was, I did everything I could to find out the facts. It took a great deal of trouble and a good many months of hard work before I was able to obtain all the information which I could present to my right hon. Friend. I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he dealt with this subject so speedily and for the interest which he has taken in the matters which I have put before him.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), I genuinely regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. I happened to be on two other Standing Committees at that time, and I imagine that three would have been a little too much for anyone.

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman will agree that, even in his constituency, if rate relief were given to all old people who were ratepayers, it would be far better than what the present Bill will do.

Mr. Godman Irvine: No. There are elderly people in my constituency who would not necessarily need this relief. On the other hand, there are others who do desperately need it. It is just because there are these people that I have done my best to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to the hardship which they were suffering. I have a great many people in my constituency who have worked hard in their lives and who have small savings. When they retired, they thought that their savings would meet their requirements, hut they now find that, with this sudden increase of rates, they cannot carry on.
My right hon. Friend has speedily brought forward this interim Measure, and, as many hon. Members have said today, we are waiting for the final survey of the whole situation. One noticeable fact is that the Liberal Party does not seem to be taking much interest on this matter. Its attitude is precisely

as it was on the occasion of the Adjournment debate when some of us spoke on the same subject and there was not one Liberal Member present. It seems odd that there is no one here to say anything on behalf of the Liberal Party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay referred particularly to the way in which some people are a little reluctant to put forward their financial position even though they have a perfect right to do so. I came across examples of that when I was trying to find evidence about these cases in my constituency. I found great difficulty in persuading some of these people even to put forward the facts which would enable me to place them before my right hon. Friend. I do not think we can make the point too often nor too strongly that we sincerely hope that when this Measure is on the Statute Book no one will feel he is not entitled to take full advantage of the relief the Bill offers.
We hope that my right hon. Friend will see that the larger survey will be pressed on with as fast as possible, because we all realise that this is only an interim Measure.

Mr. Mapp: Will the hon. Member consider conceding the point that there is a stratum—it may be a large one—in his constituency which fits the circumstances he described? Can he with equity and justice say to the 230-odd authorities which will not qualify for a Clause 1 grant that the Government want to exhibit a measure of sympathy for hardship in the manner the hon. Member has in mind, but that the authorities will find it a very serious strain on their resources despite the fact that 50 per cent. will be borne by the Government? Dees he think that contradiction is fair and sensible in a Bill in 1964?

Mr. Godman Irvine: What the hon. Member has said illustrates again that he does not appreciate the type of situation I represent. There are authorities in my area where the type of point he has just put would not arise at all. This Bill is directed to places where there have been sleep increases in rates. Where there is not that kind of situation that point does not arise.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: There has been a great deal of criticism from both sides of the House about the unprincipled nature of this Bill. I use the word "unprincipled" in its precise sense, that this is a makeshift Bill hurriedly got together to deal with a particular emergency. It is just as well that it is a makeshift Measure because of the dangerous principles it introduces into our finances. It was hurriedly put together because as recently as August the Government were telling their supporters that it would be wrong to nourish hopes of a Measure of this kind. Then, when the pressure increased at the Tory Party Conference, this Measure had to be hurriedly devised.
Let us have a look at some of the criticisms. First, there is the case against Clause 1 that was so well made by one of the Government's supporters the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). He represented himself as being bewildered about it, but, in fact, I think that he understood it very well. What we are all bewildered about is why it is still in the Bill when there is a much better way of helping local authorities.
The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) seemed so eager to make party points that he failed to understand what the argument about Clause 1 and relief to local authorities with a certain proportion of old people is about. Let us spell it out. This is the relief given to local authorities which satisfy the condition in Clause 1. It is not tied at all to the question whether those authorities give any relief whatever to the persons for whom the hon. Member claims to be concerned.
To take two possible extremes, a local authority benefiting under Clause 1 might argue to itself like this: "We are going to get £X under Clause 1 and under Clause 5 we shall get half of whatever sum we part with in relief to individuals. Therefore, we shall resolve that £X shall be granted in relief of rates. Then we shall be properly and fully using all the help the Government give under the Bill to help hard hit individuals."
That is one end of the scale. At the other end of the scale there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an authority from

getting help under Clause 1 and not giving a penny of rate relief to anybody—

Mr. Mapp: That is it.

Mr. Stewart: —and using the money, possibly, to erect a statue to the Minister.

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman echoing the argument put forward by his hon. Friends the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). If it really be the case that there are local authorities who lack consideration, or the will and wish to help those in hardship, is it not a good thing that they should be judged in comparison with their neighbours who do not lack the will and the wish to use the permissive powers given in this Bill?

Mr. Pargiter: When my hon. Friend replies will he also deal with the point that an authority which, by virtue of the nature of the new rating regulations, has no increase in rates at all, if it has the proportion of old people prescribed in the Bill, will receive the benefit which the Bill provides, without having any increase at all for those it is supposed to be relieving?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I take the point. It means a local authority may well have no need to give relief to get help under Clause 1.
On the second point, it may be true that a local authority which behaved less generously than was right would be, as the hon. Gentleman put it, judged in comparison with its neighbours which behaved more generously. The fact that it was being so judged would be remarkably cold comfort to the people in its area who ought to be getting relief and were not getting it.
What we are dealing with under Clause 1 is the taxpayers' money, which is to be granted to particular, favoured local authorities, and we ought to have some sort of guarantee that it will be used for the purposes with which ostensibly the Bill is concerned. I am still mystified, like the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), as to why the Government stick to this.
Why not remove Clause 1 from the Bill and give the whole of the help which is to be given to local authorities by making the terms of Clause 5 more generous, and say, for example, that a local authority instead of getting half the sum it spends out in reliefs to individuals from the Treasury is to get three-quarters from the Treasury? Or even, if one were to be very reckless, to get the whole 100 per cent. grant from the Treasury. I shall be told that the Treasury would never sanction so reckless an idea. Yes, but the Treasury, and the Minister, and the Government as a whole must have some idea of what they are let in for under Clause 5 as it stands. It lets them in For half the cost of reliefs granted. They are not underwriting a totally unknown liability. If they altered Clause 5 so that it would be 100 per cent. grant. they would be let in for twice what they know they are let in for. It would not be a vast, immeasurable sum, and they would have, to set against it, the fact that they would not have to give help under Clause 1, some of which may be given away where it is not necessary at all.
I am still mystified—and I think everybody is—why the Government do not pursue that course. We should have liked to have amended Clause 5 in the sense I have described when the Bill was in Committee, but we were precluded from doing so by the narrow circuit of the Money Resolution.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: It is probably too late to make the drastic alteration which the hon. Member is suggesting, and which find an interesting one, but of course, the same principle could be served, even at this late stage, if it were possible to tie the grant under Clause I to local authorities which would operate Clause 5.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I think that that is so, but we should need to make some sort of measure of what extent they would operate it.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Stewart: And that brings me to the next point I was about to make. This is that one would have to put on to the Minister some responsibility for the way in which local authorities use their powers under the Bill.
That brings me to the second major criticism made of the Bill on both sides

of the House—that there is no guidance by the right hon. Gentleman to the local authorities as to what shall be the test of hardship. This criticism was well developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) pointed out, with a wealth of knowledge and skill, the administrative difficulties of all kinds which will face the local authorities. One of these, in particular, I will mention; it is one which the Minister dealt with but not very satisfactorily.
What about the danger of a local authority that tries to be quite generous under the Bill getting itself into trouble with the district auditor? The Minister's answer was that if the district auditor was to get it into trouble he would have to show that it no reasonable man could approve of the decision it had taken in the matter. One pictures the local authority at risk with the district auditor scouring the streets for a reasonable man to put into the box to say that he agrees with what it has done.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about this was not reassuring because some of us have made a study of what has happened to the rents of council houses in the hands of district auditors. Local authorities which have, on their own judgment and after careful consideration of the facts, wanted to reduce council rents have found sometimes that they were unable to do so without getting into trouble with them because they are constantly making comparisons with other rents and the behaviour of other local authorities.
If that sort of thing is to crop up, may not arty authority which is rather more generous than the rest find itself in danger of being in trouble with the district auditor? This is one of the many administrative worries that still surround the operation of the Bill and which are still not resolved.
Turning from particular objections to the Bill to the unsatisfactory nature of Clause I and the failure of the Minister to include any guidance or criterion on hardship by which the local authorities might act, we now come to something that underlies the whole nature of the Bill. There is, at the moment, a minimal power of total authorities to make some


remission of rates in cases of extreme hardship.
I may say at this point that it is to be hoped that some of the local authorities faced with the kind of problem described by the hon. Member for Rye and the hon. Member for Torquay will, at any rate, use that power in respect of rates that fall to be paid this year and which this Bill will not help at all.
I had even today a letter from an elderly couple to whom the Bill will give much needed relief and which illustrates very well the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford that, deplorable as the Bill is in many respects, we cannot, having people like that in mind, vote against it.
The unfortunate position of this elderly couple is that, although they will be helped next year, they are already running heavily into arrears with this year's rates, which are beyond their means. It is very much to be hoped that the local authorities will make the fullest use they can of the very limited power they now have to grant relief of rates in cases of extreme hardship even before this Bill becomes law.
In the Bill we go a bit further. We make the power to grant relief of rates in case of hardship more firmly based in a Statute than it has been before. When all is said and done, despite that statutory basis, we cannot get away from the fact that this is a means test. I ask the hon. Member for Torquay to consider further his parallel between claiming rate relief under the Bill and filling up one's Income Tax return. The basic difference between the two is that when I inform Her Majesty's inspector of taxes of any ground on which I can claim relief, I am not asking him of his goodness to do something to help me particularly; I am telling him of a fact, and, if the fact is established, he has got to give me the relief; he has no discretion in the matter. Under the Bill, if I present the facts of my circumstances to the local authority, it still remains within its discretion to say whether it thinks that I am hard up and ought to have the relief. That is why it must be regarded as a means test.
Suppose that we were to go further than that and to put it into the Bill that

anybody who is hard up to a certain extent, measured by size of income and other circumstances, is to get the relief, removing the discretion of the authority; we would then have taken the first tiny step towards the principle of local Income Tax. It may be that the moment that we say that the amount a man has to pay for the cost of local services is to be determined not simply by the rateable value of the property which he occupies, but, in the case of some people, at any rate, by reference to his whole income and what he could afford, we would be beginning to admit that it is a man's whole income and what he can afford which ought to be the determinant of what he should pay towards the cost of local services. We have not done that yet, but what we have done in the Bill is a pointer as to the road along which we ought to be thinking of travelling.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: There is some validity in what the hon. Gentleman says about there not being discretion in the case of the national Exchequer, but, once a standard has been set, presumably local authorities will within that standard apply the reliefs within their discretion to everybody within those brackets, not to one, but to another. The hon. Gentleman's argument is valid only to some extent.

Mr. Stewart: The scheme is something which can be varied or destroyed at any time by the decision of the local authority. The more precise and firm it is made, the nearer we get to accepting the principle of some kind of local Income Tax, that is to say, proportioning a man's contribution to the cost of local services to his whole income and his whole situation, rather than basing it simply on the rateable value of the property which he occupies.
Meanwhile, however, and in the first operation of the Bill, it involves a hardship test, a means test. I say that not in any way to discourage anybody who is in real need from making an application under the Bill. I say it because it points out the fact which underlies the Bill throughout—that there is something basically wrong with our local government finance. If there is a system of taxation—and although we use the word "rates", in fact it is a kind of taxation—which works out so that we


then have to go round and say that there are poor fellows who cannot afford to pay the taxes under the legal arrangements which we have made so far, that shows that there is something wrong with that system of taxation and that we have not been able generally to proportion it to ability to pay. It is at that kind of thing that the Government ought to be looking and I suppose are looking, but ought to have been looking years ago.
It is about three years since my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I took part in a half-day debate urging the Government to review the relation of local and central Government finance and to find alternative sources of local government revenues. If, on that occasion, we had had the help of the hon. Member for Rye, it might not now be necessary for him to go round hunting out the individual victims of an error of general policy.
The Bill has to go through, but it should go through with a lesson to the Government to pay a little more attention to the advice that has been given lo them for so long about the unsatisfactory nature of local government finance, and of the results that will be achieved if year after year we add to the services of local government without realising that after a time this will build itself up into a situation in which the total amount of money that local authorities have to collect is such that under our present system of rating it is bound to require intolerably large amounts from the particular individuals whom we trust the Bill may help.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) will not expect me to follow him in the development of ideas for local income tax. He will no doubt have read the various studies on this, as I have, and realise that they would occupy a good deal more time than I could reasonably inflict on the House tonight.
The hon. Gentleman started by saying that this was an unprincipled Bill. Let me endeavour to try, once again, to get the principle across, because I suggest that it is a clear one, although I know that I shall have some difficulty in persuading my hon. Friend the Member for

Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) that the connection between Clause 1 and Clause 2 is as it should be.
The whole basis of the grant under Clause 1 is to channel some extra Exchequer money to those local authorities who, on the face of it, are likely to have the heaviest burden and demand under Clause 2, and to do so in a manner, not as the hon. Member for Fulham would suggest, or indeed as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South would suggest, which would give the local authority in effect 100 per cent. specific grant, but in a way in which the local authority will still have a financial responsibility for the judgments it makes, and, at the same time, will have some extra money to ensure that the consequent extra burden on other ratepayers does not become excessively heavy.
It is arguable that one could have instead a specific grant—as the hon. Member for Fulham suggested—but I do not think that I would go with him in suggesting that this would result in precisely the same bill to the Exchequer, because I am sure that the essence of a discretion in this matter is to couple with it the task of financial responsibility, and that is the purpose of the separation of the grants under Clause 1 and Clause 5.
The hon. Member for Fulham also endeavoured to draw a distinction between the means test as it arises, or is likely to arise, in substantiating a claim of hardship, and the means test to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) drew attention, under which most of us come from time to time in regard to income tax. The hon. Member for Fulham said that the difference is that having established a fact one has a right to relief under Income Tax law, whereas under the Bill, relief is discretionary. But I understand that even under the National Assistance provisions there are certain items in respect of which, if one establishes a fact one creates a right. I do not believe that because a person has a right, the fact that he has still to declare the whole of his personal financial circumstances makes it in any way less a means test than if there is merely a claim for discretion.
I welcome the comparison made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tor


quay because it is immensely important, not only in relation to the Bill, but in relation to National Assistance, to persuade people that there is nothing derogatory in declaring their incomes for this sort of purpose. I always blatantly tell my constituents that it is the taxpayer who finds the money, and goes through a much more virulent means test, and that it is stretching their pride a little too far to object to doing so when they are at the other end. I hope that we shall be able to persuade people who have a claim to come forward and not to feel that their pride is hurt in doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) raised two points—one the slightly academic one, at the moment, of the possibility of a local authority's being composed entirely or mainly of members who might be eligible for relief under the Bill. If that position arose I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be asked to exercise his dispensation under Section 76 of the Local Government Act, and I have no doubt that that dispensation would be given.
The general principle is that where local authority members have an interest, within the terms of that Section, in sufficient numbers either to make the council's business unworkable or to upset the balance of the parties, a dispensation is always given. I believe that in such a situation a local authority will be careful to ensure that its members' personal interests do not predominate.
My hon. Friend went on to refer to the question of publicity. I am glad to say that already the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants has considered the matter and has circulated a paper emphasising the importance of bringing to people's notice the terms of the Bill, to the extent that those terms affect their eligibility. Whether or not local authorities will require any guidance on the second hurdle, in relation to the sort of scale that individual local authorities should apply, I will certainly consider. No doubt, suitable advice can be incorporated in a circular.
I believe that local authorities will be able to decide this sort of thing for them

selves. They will normally be quite clear about the incidence of hardship in their area, and about the houses that qualify, and in many cases a simpler form of publicity will be appropriate, although something more complex may be required in some areas. I will certainly take my hon. Friend's words to heart and see what we can do to make sure that people understand the position, and that local authorities, having considered the scales they will apply, will make suitable efforts to give those scales publicity.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) seemed to be arguing against himself. He came to the conclusion, after some logic which I found difficult to follow, that it would be much better to give relief to all households occupied by elderly people. In the course of his argument he said that a married man in the lower income group and with a large number of children might be suffering great hardship. That is the whole point of the discretion in the Bill. It ensures that although those areas with large numbers of old people are likely to be the areas of greatest hardship, nevertheless all cases of hardship, whether they involve the young, the old, the sick or the fit, will be considered in exactly the same way. As has been pointed out, there are a large number of elderly people who are unlikely to suffer hardship and who may be well off.
Several hon. Members seemed to be following the argument of The Times in its leader this morning; that one could define "poverty"—that the definition already exists in legislation—and save a great deal of trouble in defining "hardship". Hon. Members who take that view should spend five minutes in the Library looking up the definition of "poverty" in the Oxford Dictionary, for they will see that it is given as:
indigence, destitution, want…
That sounds definite, but at the end of the definition of "poverty" is added, in brackets, the words:
In various degrees
Once one has that one gets nowhere nearer a definition. I also took the trouble to look up the word "definite" and found the definition of that to be
A precise statement of the essential nature of a thing".


How one can have anything fairly definite, as The Times describes "poverty", is playing with words. It may be that a purist would say that it is wrong to have discretion in a system of taxation. But, after all, this has been inherent in the whole history of the rating system in this country and it is only a very few years ago that we had the sympathetic rating assessments by local authorities to meet this sort of thing for charities.
I do not claim that we have solved or have begun to solve all the problems that arise from rating, but I want to make it clear that despite the claims of hon. Members opposite about a review two or three years ago, let us remember the futility of a review of any sort when we had different classes of property all valued on the basis of different dates. We had houses on 1939 values, commercial property on 1955 values with 20 per cent. Berating and industrial property at 50 per cent. Until we had revaluation it would have been absurd to imagine that we had the data on which to embark on a realistic review which would be likely to produce realistic results.
That review is in progress. Meanwhile, it is inevitable that over the years, with revaluation taking into account very nearly a 25-year jump, values will have changed. The general pattern in this respect has changed throughout the country and in some cases the effect of revaluation on individual households has been severe. It is right to endeavour to meet that problem and I think that the Bill is a valuable instrument to do so.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend say something about the main item of complaint in almost every speech tonight; the uneasiness about the lack of relationship between Clause 1 and the operation of any hardship scheme? What

sanction, if any, is then; to local authorities which claim benefit under Clause I without offering any hardship scheme?

Mr. Corfield: I endeavoured to deal with that. If we are going to place on local authorities a discretion of this sort, I suggest that we must treat them as responsible bodies and give them a degree of financial responsibility. If my hon. Friend really feels that we are unjustified in trusting local authorities in this direction, I think that he would also feel that they cannot be trusted with any form of discretionary power. My hon. Friend cannot haw it both ways. Whatever the defects of local authorities may or may not be, we certainly will not improve them or increase their responsibility by treating them in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HIRE, PURCHASE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to hire-purchase and credit-sale, and to make further provision as to the registration and licensing of mechanically propelled vehicles in relation to vehicles let or agreed to be sold by way of hire-purchase or conditional sale, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under section 22 of the Vehicles (Excise) Apt 1962 which may be attributable to any regulations made by virtue of provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the registration and licensing of vehicles, and to any provision made by the last-mentioned Act as to expenses incurred in the performance of functions under any such regulations;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of fees paid in pursuance of any such regulations.

Resolution agreed to.

SUB-POST OFFICE, RADCLIFFE (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

11.25 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: The subject I want to raise was originally to have been raised in July of last year, but my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General may remember that I gave the time to the then Prime Minister so that he could make an announcement that we had signed the nuclear weapons test-ban treaty. I was glad on that occasion to give up my time to that most important matter. My constituents, of course, were glad, too, that that treaty was signed. I hope that tonight my hon. Friend will emulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and give equal cause for satisfaction to my constituents in Radcliffe.
This debate arises out of a decision to close the Blackburn Street sub-post office, in Radcliffe, next August, when a new Crown post office is to be opened. We have had this sub-post office for 30 years, during which time people have built their lives around it. It is used by a large number of people, particularly pensioners going to draw their retirements pensions and mothers going to draw family allowance.
A week ago today I had the opportunity to present to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General a petition signed by 1,351 people against the closing of this sub-post office. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the fact that as recently as last Monday he visited the place to find out for himself whether or not it was necessary for the sub-post office to continue. I hope that his visit has convinced him that it would be desirable to keep it open.
I was glad of the opportunity to show him the hill that elderly people would have to climb if the place were closed and they had to go to the bottom of the hill to collect their pension and do other necessary business at the counter. I pointed out to my right hon. Friend last Monday that many people would have to make journeys on at least two buses to reach the new Crown post office.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to make out a case for the continuation of this sub-post office, but I should like to quote from one or two letters from constituents. We all appreciate that friends and relatives can collect pensions on behalf of retirement pensioners, and I want to quote from a letter written to me by a doctor. He writes:
I have quite a number of elderly patients living in the area around Blackburn Street. They have to visit the Blackburn post office weekly for their pensions, allowances, etc. Apart from being old some of them are in poor health and are only able to walk short distances. A little exercise helps them, and a short walk to the post office helps them mentally and physically. They do not like other people to draw their pensions for them. To move the post office to the town centre would cause great hardship to these people. They could not walk up and down Blackburn Street and could not afford to travel on buses.
I quote a sentence or two from a letter received from a local clergyman:
You will be used to any proposed change being met by resentment and opposition. This is the first time I have felt bound to protest. Streams of people from factories and from the Manchester trains find it convenient to use the post office in Blackburn Street on their way to and from work. 'The hill' is an immeasurable inconvenience, and only people living in the town know with what reluctance, except on market days, they will go down to the bridge unless forced to do so.
I was going to quote from further letters from a businessman, a professional man and various other people who are intimately concerned in this matter, but I do not propose to do so because I think probably I have made my point to my hon. Friend. All I should like to say to him is this. At this sub-post office 850 pensioners draw their pensions every week, and, in addition, 20 to 30 blind people make their way by some means or other to this office. If it is so closed it means that these 850 pensioners and 20 to 30 blind people are going to find their lives made far more difficult by having to go to the bottom of a very steep hill and then find their way back again.
If any more proof were needed that this sub-post office should remain open, I can only tell my hon. Friend that I have received a deputation from the mayor, the town clerk and various councillors who are appalled at the prospect that this sub-post office should be closed. I am the first to appreciate that the Post Office must operate as an


economic concern. Otherwise, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General could not carry out his duties efficiently. All I would say in this context is that at the moment in this vicinity there are one Crown office and two sub-offices. It is proposed, if the sub-post office to which I refer is closed, that there should then be one Crown office and one sub-office. I should like to know why it should have been necessary to cut out one sub-post office when, for the last 30 years, it has served a very useful purpose.
I should like to put a proposition to my hon. Friend. Some time ago we had a similar problem in my constituency concerning the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The proposal was to close the local office of the Ministry of Pensions in Radcliffe and to concentrate business at the Bury branch. I protested 10 my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and he agreed to retain the Radcliffe office as a caller office as an experiment to see how it worked. I am merely asking my hon. Friend to do the same.
I should like to have the assurance of my hon. Friend that the Blackburn Street sub-post office will be kept open if only for a sufficient period to ascertain whether it is serving a useful purpose or not. What I would, of course, like to have from him in addition is an assurance that if this experiment proves worth while, the Blackburn Street sub-post office will remain open permanently.
I believe that the hundreds of people who have contacted me over this matter are very reasonable people, and I can assure my hon. Friend that this is not a frivolous request on their part. From the information I have given my hon. Friend tonight, I hope that he will agree that most of the complaints have come not from people who are going to be personally inconvenienced, but from people who are deeply concerned about the inconvenience that might be caused to old people and to people who are infirm or incapacitated. I hope that after my right hon. Friend saw the site for himself last Monday he will appreciate that there is a very good case for keeping the sub-post office open.

11.36 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): First, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) for the reasonable way in which he has put his case. As long ago as 1954 the Town Clerk of Radcliffe, on behalf of the council asked us to consider removing the Crown post office in Milltown Street, Radcliffe, to the area which was to be developed as the new town centre.
The office in Milltown Street was too small to meet the demands made on it, and it was not, in any case, as centrally situated as we should have wished. We decided, therefore, that it would be right and in the best interests of Radcliffe to accept the council's invitation to acquire a site in the new centre, where we could put a modern and enlarged post office more suited to the needs of the town. This we did, and, finally, with the council's co-operation, we obtained a site in December, 1959.
We realised at this time that a new Crown office in the town centre would be less than a quarter of a mile away from the sub-post office in Blackburn Street, and that it would be difficult to justify keeping open that office after the Crown office was ready. I must say that all our subsequent planning has been on that basis. Indeed, when the sub-postmastership of the Blackburn Street office became vacant towards the end of 1954 it was filled on a temporary basis with just this point in mind.
When my hon. Friend first raised the question with us early in 1960, my predecessor went into the whole matter very carefully indeed, and both my right hon. Friend and I have recently gone over it again equally thoroughly. Indeed, my right hon. Friend himself, as my hon. Friend said, visited the area and the two offices mainly concerned earlier this week.
My hon. Friend is concerned because some of the people who live and work in the immediate vicinity of the Blackburn Street office would have further to go to reach a post office, and the town clerk has just sent us a petition from 1,350 local residents. My hon. Friend has also made the point that matters would be made more difficult, especially for older people, because there is a ill between the Blackburn


Street office and the site of the new Crown office. He has also expressed concern about what would happen to the Sub-Postmaster of the Blackburn Street sub-post office if his office was closed.
We have gone into all these matters very carefully. In fact, the distance between the Blackburn Street sub-office and the site of the new Crown office is only about 400 yards. It is true, as my hon. Friend has said, that there is a hill between the places, but I think it is right to say that the gradient is not really a very steep one. However, this may be, there is for those who wish to avoid climbing the hill a frequent bus service between Blackburn Street and the bus station which adjoins the site for the new Crown office. For those who do not wish to negotiate the hill, or to use the bus services there is the Water Lane sub-post office, 500 yards to the north of the Blackburn Street office, which can be reached without climbing a hill of any kind.
But for any retirement pensioners who would find the journey to either of these two post offices too much for them there is, of course, the arrangement which enables a friend or relative to collect their pensions for them. I mention this arrangement because it is available, but I accept the view which my hon. Friend has put forward, that many elderly people prefer to collect their own pensions, and I hope that those living in the vicinity of the Blackburn Street sub-office would still be able to do so in one of the ways I have mentioned.
The sub-postmaster of the Blackburn Street office, I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend, was appointed to another sub-post office in Manchester last August. Since then he has been running the Blackburn Street sub-office as well.
My hon. Friend asked why, if a Crown office and a sub-post office, can exist together now, they could not do so in future. This is a very reasonable question, and I hope that the House and my hon. Friend will excuse me if I go into some detail in replying to it In taking up the council's suggestion, we are spending about £46,000 in providing a modern and spacious Crown office which will be in keeping with the

other development taking place in the town centre. This office will be a good deal nearer to the Blackburn Street sub-post office than the present Crown office is, and it will be bound to attract some of the business now being done there. It is being built on a scale which will enable it, unlike the present Crown office, to handle this additional business easily and efficiently.
The present cost of the Blackburn Street office is about £1,800 a year. It is not, of course, possible to say how much of its business would stay with it if it remained open following the opening of the new Crown office, but it is more than likely that a good deal of the business which would otherwise go to the Crown office would remain at Blackburn Street, and that the office would continue to cost us a good deal of money.
As there would be no consequential reduction in the cost of running the new Crown office we should be paying a considerable sum each year to keep open an office which was roughly midway between two other offices—the Water Lane sub-office and the new Crown office—which themselves were only a little over half a mile apart and were well equipped to deal with all the available business.

Mr. Bidgood: I would have thought that, apart from the economic considerations, the question of service comes into this matter. It is well known that at the existing Crown office queues constantly form. I had an example given to me the other day of a business man trying to post an airmail parcel. It took him 25 minutes from the time of going into the Crown office to coming out. I would have thought that that alone would have shown that there was a good case for keeping open the sub-post office.

Mr. Mawby: Obviously, cost alone cannot be considered. There is the social importance of the Post Office, and obviously one would hope that with the new Crown office this sort of experience would not happen. Therefore, again, as we are always faced with in the Post Office, there is the question of trying to balance the social need against the financial position as far as post offices are concerned.
I do not propose to go into any great detail on the position of the new building, though the new building will be in advance of the old Crown office building, but I would like to say that I have listened extremely carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. I have tried to point out to the House the problems which face us as a Post Office, and with these considerations and the others I have mentioned earlier in mind, we should, I think, find it difficult to justify keeping open the Blackburn Street sub-office once the new Crown office is open. But the Crown office will not be ready

until August at the earliest. I assure my hon. Friend that no decision about the future of the Blackburn Street sub-office will be taken until later in the year.

Mr. Bidgood: I thank my hon. Friend very much for the consideration he has given to whit I have said tonight. I hope that, when the new Crown office is opened, he will look at the matter on its merits.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.